Additional Titles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other
Nelson
Articles:

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing?

 

More
Nelson
Articles:

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION CON
PART 1

 

By Kelleigh Nelson
September 22, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

"I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitution Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congressmen 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 it." -Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren E. Burger

"Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, I would tremble for the result of the second." -James Madison, Father of the Constitution and fourth President of the United States

Tea Party Patriots and the Constitutional-Convention

Only two days after submitting my article on the Tea Parties, Part 3 and 4, I received a shocking e-mail. I immediately called Paul Walter at News With Views and asked him what I should do.
He said, "Write another article just on this subject." The reason I called was because the article on the Tea Parties included an expose of Tea Party Patriots and the e-mail I received was entitled, "Tea Party Group to Convene Conference ...at Harvard." Yes, Tea Party Patriots (TPP) are going to Harvard on September 24th and 25th to discuss with legal experts the different ways to amend the Constitution and how feasible it would be to hold a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con).

According to several articles on this Conference, The Tea Party Patriots and Harvard Law School are co-sponsoring and co-hosting this event. In the Tea Party Insider, it states this is being held to address potentially changing the Constitution. There are an expected 400 attendees who will be there seeking reform on various issues and this will provide the forum for whether a Constitutional Convention should be organized. David Segal, a former Democratic State representative from Rhode Island said that a Constitutional Convention could be just what the country needs! Segal claims that the purpose of a federal Con-Con is to give states powers to propose amendments similar to the power imparted on Congress, but the states already have that power. The states have had that power all along, it is just that they have not made use of it for so long it has atrophied. So to say they need a Con-Con for this has to be a Trojan horse for a far more nefarious plan.

In an article in The Daily, co-founder and national coordinator of TPP Mark Meckler states, “The founders included the amendment process for the states to resist federal overreach and a convention would give states the chance to exert their authority and overturn unconstitutional laws,” He said the group isn’t yet supporting the idea of a convention, but is interested in exploring it.

When TPP co-founder, Jenny Beth Martin was asked about this Con-Con Conference in an e-mail from a TPP member who had been questioned regarding same, she commented by return e-mail, "She probably does not understand that Mark is attending the ConConCon not in support or against a Constitutional Convention, but rather as information and debate on it. We are not taking a stand on a Constitutional Convention one way or other."

Mark Meckler answered another question in an e-mail, "Tea Party Patriots is co-sponsoring this event. We will be present along with many others from the conservative movement to protect and defend the Constitution and the vision of the Founders."

Meckler also stated in e-mail correspondence with a questioning member that the approval for attending came from State and Local Coordinators on their Monday night National calls. He said, "To make sure we are clear, TPP is not expressing an organizational opinion on the advisability of an Article V Convention (with the exception of my personal opinion that this is not the time for such a convention). We are going to Harvard to fight for the Constitution and the Framers' intent." Sounds good, right? But then he muddies the water....

In the next to last paragraph Meckler says, "I understand your fear of people messing with the Constitution. It is not irrational, and not wrong to feel protective of the document. But we must also remember what many of the founders and especially Thomas Jefferson said to us, "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of a preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment..." Again, he did not think it good to change them frequently or for small reason. But he would have been vehemently opposed to the idea that amendments should not be considered nor discussed openly." Thomas Jefferson did not attend the 1787 Convention, he was the Ambassador to France at the time. He wished the Constitution had contained term limits for all politicians so they would not make it a lifelong position.


Advertisement

When I read these words in this forwarded e-mail I was shocked that these two leaders and their members do not understand the dangers of a Constitutional Convention, nor do they understand we do not need a Con-Con for amendments to the Constitution. In my opinion, they are either part of the "controlled" opposition or they are so ignorant of the dangers, they should never be in leadership roles.

The John Birch Society will be in attendance to present the dangers of a Constitutional Convention and what could happen to us. The JBS understands there are newly written constitutions waiting in the wings for just this opportunity. Here is a look at one of them written over a period of 10 years at a cost of $25 million by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. It is called, The New States Constitution. It is written in an "obverse" style which means "forming a counterpart." As an example, Article I, Section 11 states, "Education shall be provided at public expense for those who meet appropriate test of eligibility." The "obverse" of this statement is just as important as the statement itself and means, "All education shall be at public expense." In other words, all education will be government controlled and funded by taxpayer dollars, there will be no private schools that are not controlled by the federal government.

Section V of Article I states, "There shall be no discrimination because of race, creed, color, origin or sex." This opens the door to pedophilia and bestiality.

Section X of Article I states, "Those who cannot contribute to the productivity shall be entitled to a share of the national product. But distribution shall be fair, and the total may not exceed the amount for this purpose held in the National Sharing Fund." Talk about a communist government!

Of course we've allowed our country to get to a stage similar to this and we simply must force these Congressional criminals to obey the Constitution we have.

Origins of the Con-Con

Back in the early 80s, the same excuse was used then as is being used now to push for a Constitutional Convention -- a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). We fought then with prayer and hard work. Unfortunately, this BBA and Con-Con rhetoric once again sounds good and seems plausible to so many of the uneducated electorate who only want to save their country from the out-of-control abusive politicians, but who are ignorant of the ramifications of such an action. Along with this danger, we must remember too, that a "false friend" is more dangerous than an open enemy. In many of my articles I've exposed how the Republicans and the phony rightwing have been in bed with the left for decades. So, when I name names that are alleged conservatives, do not think for one minute they are ill informed or do not know what they're doing.

Over the years, the pro-Con-Con lobbyists and politicians have attempted to dismiss the concerns about what they call a runaway Convention. But the above words of James Madison and Warren Burger, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was an expert Constitutional scholar, and scores of others equally qualified make it plain that opening a Con-Con is very dangerous business.

When the gavel fell on the first and only Constitutional Convention which took place in 1787, the delegates proceeded to disregard Congress' preset agenda, a limited agenda that was given to them calling for modification only of the Articles of Confederation which were in force at that time. They threw out the Articles of Confederation, i.e. they threw out the existing government at that time, and they wrote a whole new Constitution. About 50 of the 55 delegates at that Constitutional Convention were practicing Christians, so the Constitution they wrote was rooted squarely in the Word of God and the Ten Commandments. It maximized individual liberty while at the same time limiting government power.[1]

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

To ensure the new Constitution was adopted, the delegates simply ignored the existing ratification rules and wrote new ones which they used to get their new Constitution ratified. It was a gift of God for sure, but there are absolutely no Constitutional guarantees that the legal precedent of the first Convention will not be repeated by the second one with the result being a new Constitution, but you can rest assured that this one will not be from Godly Christian men. Back in the early 80s, many of the states that called for a one-item Convention like the BBA and wrote limiting language into their calls (thinking they could indeed control the agenda they stated they would secede from the Convention if it overstepped the bounds), but the precedent of the first Convention is the basis for American jurisprudence.[2]

A Con-Con is not just the amendment that is at issue. The entire document is taken down from its pedestal and is put on the table and people go to work on it, tearing it apart. We no longer have statesmen like our founders. Can you imagine the delegates from each state and those who would work on our law-of-the-land document today? For part two click below.

Click here for part -----> 2,

Footnotes:

1. Constitution in Crisis, Kenneth C. Hill and Joan Collins.
2. Ibid, page 12
3. Ibid, page 13
4. Ibid, page 30
5. Ibid, page 13
6. Ibid, page 17

2010 Kelleigh Nelson - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts


Kelleigh Nelson has been researching the Christian right and their connections to the left, the new age, and cults since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She and her husband live in Knoxville, TN, and she has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Prior to moving to Tennessee, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company in Ohio. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots.

E-Mail: proverbs133@bellsouth.net


 

Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back in the early 80s, the same excuse was used then as is being used now to push for a Constitutional Convention -- a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). We fought then with prayer and hard work.