?!?!?!?!?! Why Haven't We Heard About This????? Horrible!!

[Cynthia Osburn]

Check out this link I just read a minute ago! Time we contact our state legislators!! If this is true, things are about to get A LOT worse!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83364

[Cynthia Osburn]

http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/radio-play.php?EpisodeID=9523

Here is the link of Brannon Howse talking about this. It is true. :( Please contct me if the link does not work.

[Judy Doyle]

This truly important issue was posted on this site on Wednesday I believe. You are right, it is critical and truly horrible but the timing seems appropriate considering the Constitutional issues surrounding the fact that Soetoro/obama is not qualified under the Constitution to be President of the United States. It seems appropriate that there would be a push to change our very important Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of this country. If it crumbles, then the United States will cease to exist as we know it today.

[Lone Star State Sentinal]

NO WAY!! NO HOW!!

[Denise]

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):

The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Informal Amendment"

Another way the Constitution's meaning is changed is often referred to as "informal amendment." This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time.

There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to monied land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution, because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are fundamental to our political system.

The second major way the meaning of the Constitution changes is through the judiciary. As the ultimate arbiter of how the Constitution is interpreted, the judiciary wields more actual power than the Constitution alludes to. For example, before the Privacy Cases, it was perfectly constitutional for a state to forbid married couples from using contraception; for a state to forbid blacks and whites to marry; to abolish abortion. Because of judicial changes in the interpretation of the Constitution, the nation's outlook on these issues changed.

In neither of these cases was the Constitution changed. Rather, the way we looked at the Constitution changed, and these changes had a far-reaching effect. These changes in meaning are significant because they can happen by a simple judge's ruling and they are not a part of the Constitution and so they can be changed later.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Popular Amendment

One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar's book, The Constitution: A Biography.

The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."

It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether.

Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details of affecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Constitutional Topic: Ratification Conventions

The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Amendment Ratification Conventions. Article 5 details a couple of ways that an amendment to the Constitution can be proposed - either through Congress or through a Constitutional Convention. However an amendment is proposed, the final step is ratification. Two methods for ratification are provided - by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by three-fourths of the states in convention. This topic concerns the latter of these two.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The normal course of events, when an amendment to the Constitution has been desired by the people, is for Congress to pass the amendment and for the state legislatures to then ratify. Congressional proposal of the amendment is by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses. State ratification is by three-fourths majority.

The Constitution does provide for one other way to ratify: by convention. A state convention differs from the state legislature in that it is usually an entirely separate body from the legislature. This introduces a different political dynamic into the amendment process.

The only time that conventions have been used was in the case of the 21st Amendment, which overturned the 18th Amendment. The 18th abolished alcohol manufacture or sales on a national scale. The 21st repealed the 18th, stating instead that each state shall have the ability to set its own laws regarding liquor. The text of the 21st specifically stated that it would have to be ratified by conventions held in each state:

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Why specify conventions over legislatures, as every other amendment had been ratified up to then? The thought was that the people of the conventions, which would typically be average citizens, would be less likely to bow to political pressure to reject the amendment than elected officials would be. Note that the Supreme Court has ruled that a popular referendum is not a substitute for either the legislature nor a convention, nor can a referendum approve of or disapprove of the legislature's or a convention's decision on an amendment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of that out of the way, how does a ratification convention work? In the legislature, the method is simple: propose a bill of ratification and vote it up or down. But a convention gets more complicated because it is by necessity separate and different from the legislature. For this discussion, I will use the convention method of Vermont as a model (17 VSC 1811-1825).

The first step is proposal. Once Congress has proposed an amendment that is to be approved by convention, the governor has 60 days to call for an election of delegates to the convention, and the setting of a date for those elections. Note that the Vermont code does not contemplate the calling of ratifying conventions from a national amendment convention, though the same procedures would likely be followed.

Fourteen persons are elected to be members of the convention. They are elected at large, meaning that each voter would cast votes for fourteen people, with the top fourteen vote-getters being elected. The election must take place from three to twelve months after the governor's call. The convention must take place 20 to 30 days after the election. The convention itself is held in the Senate chamber in the state capital.

The candidates themselves are selected from a list of 28 possible Vermont citizens. All 28 candidates are selected by the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house. The persons selected must agree to be placed on the ballot - 14 of whom are opposed to ratification, 14 or whom are in favor. The ballots are to be plainly marked so that voters can decide based on the candidate's stand on the issue, or on name recognition. The state has 14 counties - each county is to have one "pro" and one "con" candidate. Voters can vote for all "For" or all "Against," or any combination.

The elected delegates meet on the appointed date, with the majority of those elected being a quorum. The code does not detail how the convention is to conduct its business aside from the fact that there will be a chairman and that the secretary of state will be the secretary of the convention, and those two persons will certify the results of the convention's vote. The convention might only last 15 minutes, or it could drag out for several days for debate. However long the convention takes, delegates are provided a stipend of $10.00 and reimbursement of actual expenses.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For comparison, the rules of New Mexico were randomly chosen. The procedure in New Mexico is vastly different (reference section 1-18-1 of the New Mexico Code). To start, the governor has only 10 days to call a convention, which seems short until the members of the convention are mentioned. Each member of the state legislature is a member of the convention, and the convention is held in the House chamber. No special election is called to appoint delegates. The code does effectively limit the convention to three days by refusing to pay the delegates for more than three days of work.

Lastly, the rule of Florida were chosen for comparison. The Florida rules are in 9 FSC 107.01 - 107.11. In Florida, the convention is made up of 67 members. The governor has 45 days to call an election to be held from five to ten months after Congress issues the proposed amendment. Anyone can apply to be a member of the convention, with the state qualifications for the state House being used as an eligibility test. Candidates can officially declare that they are for or against the amendment, or apply unannounced. An application fee of $25 and a 500-name petition are also required. On the ballots, candidates are listed in three categories: for, against, and undecided. There is also provision for write-in candidates. The vote is at large, meaning that the 67 top vote-getters in the state win the 67 seats in the convention. The meeting is held on the second Tuesday following the election. Delegates are not compensated per diem or for expenses.

Each state, then, has differing procedures for the calling and holding of their ratification conventions. But in the end, the yay or nay votes of the conventions are what allows an amendment to pass or be rejected.



http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_acon.html

[Cynthia Osburn]

Great News!!

GRASSROOTS ACTIVISTS DERAIL OHIO CON-CON RESOLUTION

By news writer Sarah Foster
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
December 15, 2008
© NewsWithViews.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio — An attempt by GOP lawmakers to sneak a resolution through the state legislature last week calling for a constitutional convention – or “con con” -- was halted, at least until next year, by a hastily assembled coalition of grassroots activists who lobbied representatives at the state capitol and testified against the controversial measure during its committee hearing Wednesday.

“I believe it was God’s blessing that we found out about it and were able to organize quickly and put a stop to it being voted on today by the committee and the House. It was moving very quickly,” activist Teri Owens told NewsWithViews that evening.

“We seem to have put a kink in their plans because this had been introduced very quietly and we almost missed it,” she said. “We had no idea this was coming down the pike.”

Rep. Matt Huffman, a Republican first-term member of the House of Representatives, the General Assembly’s lower chamber, waited until Dec. 3 to introduce House Joint Resolution 8, which if passed by both houses would make Ohio the 33rd state to petition Congress to call a constitutional convention. Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, when the legislatures of two-thirds (34) of the states have passed a petitioning resolution, Congress is mandated to convene a convention.

Fourteen Republican legislators signed on as cosponsors but no Democrats.

On Dec. 9, the day before the hearing for HJR 8, Sen. Keith Faber (R), introduced its companion bill, Senate Joint Resolution 9, in the State Senate.

As with similar resolutions introduced over the years in Ohio and other states, HJR 8 and SJR 9 limit discussion and consideration to one amendment (in this instance, a Balanced Budget Amendment) to the Constitution, and Ohio delegates would be bound not to address or vote on any other issue that might be introduced.

“Russian Roulette with the Constitution”

Calling a constitutional convention has been a hot-button issue for over three decades. Although it is one of two methods Article V of the Constitution provides for amendment, it has never been used. The danger in holding a con con, according to most legal scholars, is that once the delegates are assembled there is no way to limit debate to one topic, and it is possible that an entirely new Constitution could be introduced and ratified.

As former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in 1983, in an oft-quoted letter to Phyllis Schafly, president of Eagle Forum:

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ …

“A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention.”

Which is why Schafly characterized a con con as “playing Russian roulette with the Constitution.”

And it is why national organizations across the political spectrum have opposed calling one. These include the John Birch Society, Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, Daughters of the American Revolution, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way.

They’ve been largely successful. Following an initial spate of approvals during the 1970s, during which some 30 states passed con-con resolutions, no state has followed their lead since 1983, though numerous attempts have been made. Several states have rescinded their resolutions, but it is questionable that Congress will acknowledge these rescissions.

HJR 8 brings the con-con issue back into public debate.

A Slam-Dunk Passage

The plan apparently was for the committee to hear the bill (with no adverse testimony allowed), vote in its favor, and send it straight to the floor of the House for a slam-dunk passage. They had good reason for confidence. HJR 8’s introduction this late in the session meant that likely opponents wouldn’t be aware of it until it was signed into law. Moreover, the measure was assigned to the 11-member Judiciary Committee, comprised of five Democrats and six Republicans, four of whom were cosponsors.

Although Democrats took the House in the Nov. 4 election, it remains under Republican control until Jan. 3, essentially guaranteeing HJR 8’s passage if it was waved through committee. The GOP still holds the Senate by a commanding majority.

To top it off, the Judiciary Committee is chaired by Rep. Louis Blessing, a Republican who’s been with the Ohio Legislature – either in the Senate or House – for 25 years. Though not a cosponsor of HJR 8, back in 1987 Blessing had cosponsored a similar resolution, which was defeated.

“He’s a 20-year champion for getting a con-con through,” Teri Owens observed.

Wednesday’s scenario didn’t happen as planned, but only because the Institute for Principled Policy, an Ohio-based think tank, learned of it the Friday before the scheduled hearing – wrote up an incisive analysis with what-to-do instructions and posted these on the Internet. In its analysis the IPP warned:

“Kiss the second amendment goodbye, in favor of a ‘collective’ right to self-defense, meaning no private ownership of firearms or other weapons. Only police and armed forces (not to mention criminals) will have guns. Kiss the much battered and abused 4th and 5th amendments goodbye. Watch for the 1st Amendment to be ‘revised’ into a meaningless jumble of verbiage which any court can feel free to misconstrue at will. The same for the rest of the Bill of Rights.

"State sovereignty as guaranteed in the 9th and 10th Amendments and Article IV of the Constitution? An archaic idea whose time has passed in a modern world. It will be chucked in favor of wording which would allow easy melding of the United States of America with its northern and southern neighbors into a United States of North and South America as part of a regional world governance scheme under the UN.”

The news was picked up by the umbrella group Ohio Freedom Alliance and handed along to activists nationwide in a cyberspace tag-team.

Critics faced a major hurdle: no testimony would be allowed at the hearing. Ohioans and constitutionalists from around the country flooded the offices of committee members and other lawmakers with a phone calls and e-mails. It was apparently this massive outpouring of state and national indignation that persuaded Blessing to change his mind, though he has not admitted this. Whatever the reason, the chairman agreed to permit testimony.

Teri Owens shared details of the hearing with NewsWithViews.com.

On Wednesday, a total of 10 speakers representing the Institute for Principled Policy, the Ohio Freedom Alliance, the Libertarian Party of Ohio, the Constitution Party of Ohio, the John Birch Society, Campaign for Liberty, and We Are Change Ohio were able to address the issue and answer questions. Of those 10, perhaps one had ever testified before a committee.

“Most of us were frightened, but we knew we didn’t have a choice,” said Owens. “It was something we had to do.”

Rep. Huffman, who authored HJR 8, presented the only testimony in its favor. Owens said that during his remarks he turned to face their group, telling them that he “knew” that those in opposition were there “out of fear” – that opponents of the con-con are “just fearful of what’s going to happen.”

“So we impressed on the committee that it was not about fear, but about wisdom,” Owens said. “We laid out every objection that there is to a con-con.”

NOTE: Their testimony is transcribed and posted – with some videos -- on the Institute for Principled Policy’s website and the website for PeaceChicken.com.

Their work paid off. The committee did not take a vote on Wednesday and the latest word is that it will not do so at this time. Its companion SJR9 will not be heard in committee. So it appears the con con is dead for this session – but it will definitely be reintroduced next year. Moreover, a staff member in Blessing’s office told NewsWithViews that the chairman can call the committee for an emergency session at any time – and a vote could then be taken.

Barry Sheets of IPP warns, “Anything can happen until the General Assembly adjourns sine die [indefinitely], which may be held off until the very end of the year given the instability of the state’s budget. They may, or the governor could, call an emergency session to deal with issues, so we need to stay on guard until that last gavel drops on the 127th General Assembly.”

A Con Con to Kill the Constitution

In February, NWV columnist Jon Ryter posed the question Could the 2008 Election Bring the End of America as We Know It?, and stated that the new president, whoever that would be, had been tasked with abolishing the economic sovereignty of the United States.

“Hemispheric government -- through the merging of Canada and Mexico with the United States, followed by the inclusion of Central and then South America into what will be called the American Union with the absolute loss of national sovereignty—is just around the corner,” Ryter predicted.

Ryter further predicted that citizen groups will push for a constitutional convention in an attempt to head this off, with the argument advanced that this is the only way to thwart the Council on Foreign Relation’s plan to formalize the North American Union.

“With globalist McCain, Clinton or Obama in the White House, the argument will appear to contain enough truth that it will draw supporters like metal shaving to a magnet,” Ryter declared. “In addition, proponents of the Convention will argue that only a constitutional amendment will force the federal government to deport all illegal aliens. Again, it will sound logical.”

Earlier Story:

1. Jon Christian Ryter: Could the 2008 Election Bring the End of America as We Know It? Feb. 2, 2008

Additional Reading:

1. Institute for Principled Policy: Sowing the Wind -- Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5
2. For Updates: www.peacechicken.com and American Policy Center
3. Phyllis Schlafly: Playing Russian Roulette with the Constitution, Dec. 1984
4. Phyllis Schlafly: Combating Chicanery about the Constitution, Sept. 1987
5. Phyllis Schafly: Is a Con Con Hidden in Term Limits? May 1996

Video:

Beware Article V:Message to State Legislatures -- Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

© 2008 NWV - All Rights Reserved

***used with permission by Sarah Foster & Paul Walter @ NewsWithViews
http://www.newswithviews.com

***Be sure to read Jon Christian Ryter's article that I quote from. I hadn't thought of that possibility -- that conservatives might demand a concon in order to protect the Constitution, only to have it snatched away from them. Also, those articles by Phyllis Schafley are dynamite. Between her, Ryter, Tom DeWeese, and the testimony given at the hearing -- we've got plenty of ammo for when this thing surfaces next year.
-----Sarah

[Cynthia Osburn]

UPDATE to my previous post ....

Hi Cynthia -- I see it's posted, and thank you so much, but there's what I hope is a small change to be made. At the bottom there's a link to NewsWithviews, but that page will change. At the top of the article could you post the link (below) to the article itself -- then it will always be there. Also, the article itself has been corrected to include paragraphs crediting Tom DeWeese and his work on this. Thanks -- I hope it's not too much of a hassle.

Again, thanks for your interest and concern.

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news113.htm

Sarah

********************************************************************************************
Hi Cynthia, me again. I just noticed another reason for posting the link to my article -- it has a lot of hyperlinks to articles that activists should read and groups they should know about. These don't appear in your copy as it seems to be a simple Word or Notepad document. So posting the link becomes even more critical if people are to get any use of it. Thanks again,

Sarah