A Constitutional Convention: American Suicide by Nelson Hultberg

Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 7 months ago to Government
62 comments | Share | Flag

Excerpt:
"The danger involved here has its roots in the two basic methods to change the Constitution given to us by the Founders in Article V. One is to form joint resolutions in Congress for amendments and present them to the individual states’ legislatures to accept or reject. This is the process by which all 27 amendments have been passed throughout our history. It is deliberate and sound and has served us well. But the second means to change our Constitution is not so sound. In fact it is downright dangerous. It provides for the formation of a Convention of States (COS) to be called to propose and pass amendments whenever two-thirds of the several states desire such a convention.

It is this second method, the COS, that looms ominously before us today. On surface it would seem to be a beneficial procedure to control government in Washington. But if formed, it will be nothing of the kind. Because of the ideological corruption of our citizens over this past century, a COS formed today would almost surely decide to dismantle our present Constitution and give us a totally new document, one geared to accommodate the tenor of the times, which is pervasive collectivism instead of individualism."


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by bsmith51 7 years, 7 months ago
    Seeing the threat, George Soros and his ilk have recently funded considerable media and other opposition to this movement. I spotted disinformation here immediately by the author's label of a Constitutional Convention, which it would not be.

    What it would be is a Convention of States, called by law by Congress at the lawful demand of the required quorum of states to establish and discuss - and possibly act on - one single matter considered for resolution to repair a problem at the national level.

    Each state legislature would appoint one voting delegate to place his/her vote on any matter. Most state legislatures are conservative.

    Imagine the hope for our nation if it were resolved that welfare is solely for the states' individual authorities and unconstitutional at the national level. This would more than any other issue decapitate the dream of American socialism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 7 months ago
    An interesting article, but long on hyperbole and hypotheticals. Until an actual convention is called, I'm not going to lose any sleep.

    If a Constitutional Convention is called, here are a few things I'd like to see proposed:

    1. Elimination of the 17th Amendment and a return of Senators being elected by their respective State Legislatures.
    2. Elimination the 12th Amendment, re-establishing that the Vice President is the runner-up in the Presidential election. (This would give real teeth to any threat of Impeachment and Conviction and make the Vice President more of an active role in the Senate. This would also encourage other political parties.)
    3. Amendment to the 14th Amendment, clarifying that the US Constitution and its protections extend ONLY to US citizens and legal guests on US soil.
    4. Repeal of the 16th Amendment and apportioning taxes to the States by Census for Federal budgeting purposes.
    5. New Amendment placing the burden of supporting members of Congress (salaries, staff, offices, etc.) on the respective States (to replace the 27th Amendment).
    6. Amendment to the 20th Amendment prohibiting the participation in Congress or the Executive Branch of outgoing members (to prevent lame duck actions). Also institutes a freeze on Executive Recess Appointments during this same period.
    7. New Amendment restricting political fundraising by candidates to moneys from voters residing in and legally qualified to vote in their respective Congressional Districts.
    8. New Amendment adjusting the size of the House of Representative, increasing the number to one Representative for every 200,000 citizens per State. Also provide for the House to meet and conduct business by teleconference.
    9. New Amendment mandating a balanced budget to include debt service.
    10. New Amendment eliminating the Federal Reserve and prohibiting adoption of a non-governmental body with powers to set either monetary or fiscal policy.

    Feel free to add your own.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The GOP core has been 100% swamp slugs since 1859. As it stands, I wouldn't trust the states to disobey their federal masters unless there is an overwhelming public majority against overhauling the constitution. Since 50% of the people were stupid enough to vote for Hitlery, that 50% have proven they would embrace a new socialist activist constitution. I don't believe the other 50% will be willing to take arms to the streets to defend the Bill of Rights, and that is exactly what it will require since the media will loudly support a communist constitution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 7 years, 7 months ago
    Oh so true
    Our task is to defend the principle of individual sovereignty and reason on which it depends. Then it will work perfectly.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    When me dino signed an online petition calling for the COS, that's what I thought I was signing off on. I wouldn't trust any collection of people born during the Twentieth Century to rewrite the Constitution. Just look at all the self-serving swamp slugs who now infest the Grand Old Party.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ gharkness 7 years, 7 months ago
    I've long said, and it appears I am about to be found correct, that the seeds of America's destruction are baked in the cake. If it doesn't happen now, it will happen eventually. It's not often I say this: "I'm glad I'm old, so I won't have to see it." However that doesn't change the sadness I feel for my grandchildren.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 7 years, 7 months ago
    I agree with this article. The original Constitutional Convention passed motions violative of the instructions of at least half the States that sent them to Philadelphia. Furthermore, they chose to establish the new Constitution "between those States so ratifying the same."

    The Declaration of Independence says in relevant part, "Whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." Therefore a COS would be plenipotentiary, and no instruction could possibly limit it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 7 months ago
    Last I checked, a constitutional convention could only propose amendments, which would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become the law of the land. There is no way that 38 states would agree to amendments (or a new constitution) proposed by a collectivist constitutional convention run amuck. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over this issue.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Ten regions was alive and discussed during the babuski years...father and son. sorry, don't have a link at hand but I've read this a long time ago. (well after the 70's). If I remember, a highway was proposed to link Mex to Canada and it was blocked during the babuski years.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 7 months ago
    According to the organizers of COS, that is NOT on the agenda. The agenda has already been set and pitched to the states.
    Could all that change?...maybe, but the states that have entered so far are unlikely to change that agenda making it difficult for other states to stick their mentally impaired fingers into the works.
    We have yet to see a leftest state join the convention yet as far as I know. My state, CT., is probably the dumbest among them and rejected it...needless to say, we have a Lot of stupid lefties in our kakistocracy.

    Am I being too optimistic?...Probably.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by SteveFoerster 7 years, 7 months ago
    I agree that a constitutional convention should be resisted since it would likely lead to changes that those who want less government would oppose, but I don't agree with the the "ten regions" UN conspiracy nonsense that sounds like it comes straight out of a '70s JBS pamphlet.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo