I've been asked, "Why do (I) think that certain people who seem to be respected in conservative circles (such as Michael Farris) would be involved in the Convention of States if it is as bad as I say it is. I've answered that I don't know the exact motives of each of those involved, but it seems there are many different motives, none of which have much of anything to do with preserving the U.S. Constitution as it was written. Then I get the "but we have to modernize" argument, again from people who claim to love America and yet don't understand that Convention Of States aims to change the very America they claim to love. Further they contend, "But it isn't working now, so we must act."
To answer these questions, I think it is best to look at the organizations involved, the people at the top of them, and the amendments themselves. As you read this, know I am not in the character assassination business. I just think people need to ask these questions before they follow a path that leads in the wrong direction.
Convention of States has a board of directors. Michael Farris is the head of the Convention of States project. Evidently, he is the hero of home-school parents for defending the rights of home-schooling for several years. However, there seems to be another side to this man and the amendment he proposes regarding parental rights that happens to grant more power to the federal government, power the federal government does not have in the original Constitution. He denies this. Michael Farris is also President of "Parental Rights.org," which Grover Norquist is the Director. Grover Norquist is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Norquist is married to a Muslim and is a Muslim convert. I find this partnership with Norquist to be curious and troublesome. This isn't just an acquaintanceship. It's a business partnership. Is it wise to put your faith in a man who is that closely associated with someone who is promoting Islam's Sharia law? Take a look at Norquist's Islam Connections.
"AT CPAC this year, Grover Norquist told a George Soros publication that Islam "is completely consistent with the U.S. Constitution and a free and open society," a statement that reveals either a profound lack of understanding of Islamic law, or a conscious effort at deception." This sounds just like Barack Obama's DHS advisor Mohamed Elibiary.
Why would Michael Farris create a partnership with a man such as Grover Norquist, if Farris is as he claims, a devotee of the U.S. Constitution? Does anyone else find this troubling?
On this page, under "Parental Rights Basics," Mr. Farris's organization links the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. For those of us who have been in the trenches, battling the insidious infiltration of the UN's Agenda 21 Doctrine in our United States, this is very curious. Publius Huldah has also pointed out the model for Mr. Farris is this UN Doctrine.
I think Constitutional Conservatives in the grassroots might find that fact just a little disconcerting. Has Mr. Farris revealed to the Tea Parties and grassroots folks, or the legislators, that what he is doing is placing a UN doctrine on parental rights into our Constitution?
So how about the amendment that Mr. Farris wants to place on the table for the Convention of States Convention? There is serious debate on this from both sides. Two people in particular, one of whom used to be a supporter of Farris' efforts regarding home-schooling, have been ridiculed and tossed aside by Mr. Farris in recent years, Phyllis Schafly and Publius Huldah. There are others objecting to his proposal as well. Mr. Farris' amendment, by virtue of enumerating an additional right not included in the bundle of Natural Rights, by the federal government, gives the federal government dominion over that right. The rights of parents, heretofore, have been implicit and inherent in the bundle of Natural Rights given to us by "Nature's God" as described in the Declaration of Independence. The Founders explained that all of these Natural Rights were not to be enumerated, but understood, save the few in the Bill of Rights. As we have seen, at least three of the enumerated rights are under attack constantly lately; freedom of speech, 2nd amendment gun rights, and property rights. If adding another enumerated right for parents is supposed to avert attacks on parental rights, it seems this amendment idea would do the opposite, simply draw more fire and not succeed at the supposed intention.
Mr. Farris would like to place something into the Constitution that would add a Constitutional enforceable amendment, giving the federal government power over it. This same argument is being used by those who wish to redefine what marriage is, another tenet of Natural Law. I will admit it is possible, giving him the benefit of the doubt that Mr. Farris is trying to reinforce what historically has been known as a Natural Right, "Parental Rights," just as an amendment for traditional marriage on the federal level might do. (DOMA = federal Defense of Marriage Act, is not an amendment.) What happened to DOMA? We have now a government refusing to enforce DOMA without changing the law. Repeating myself, we have 1st and 2nd amendments that are also being ignored by the federal government. (Among a myriad of other insults and attacks against amendments already in the Constitution.) If those conservative friends of mine would see how far DOMA has gotten us, they might understand that when the federal government gets the power to decide the definitions of rights extraneous to the Constitution, today's policy brokers don't land on the side of traditional Natural Law. There is also the federal judiciary which would be adjudicating the purpose and intent of the amendment, and we have seen clearly today that the federal judiciary is not on the side of conservative causes or necessarily individual rights and liberties. Mr. Farris denies this is a problem.
Mr. Farris explains that amending the Constitution is not an act of the Federal government, but is an action by states. He says that, but that is not the point. The point of the Convention of States is that the amendments require interpretation and enforcement by the federal government and the federal judiciary. He argues otherwise. He asserts on the one hand that the states can ignore the federal government by going through the Convention of States process, but nonetheless, the amendment he proposes is an addition to the federal Constitution. If the states are so independent as to ignore the federal government, why is he concerned with adding an amendment to the Constitution?
One more thing I noticed in one of Mr. Farris' arguments against Publius Huldah that makes me question the Convention of States. The Convention of States proponents, i.e. Mr. Farris, continually assert that this has nothing to do with Congress and that the states can do this on their own...or at the least, Congress MUST ratify what the states have decided. He says that Article V gives all the power of doing this to the states. Yet, in this article, according to Mr. Farris:
"Constitutional amendments are created by a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Congress which is followed by ratification by three-fourths of the several states."
So I wish to ask, which is it? He admits here that you must go through Congress in order to create amendments to the Constitution. He says the states ratify these after Congress has voted to create the amendments. That is backwards and upside down from what his organization, the Convention of States sales people are telling grassroots conservatives. In effect, in his quote above he is admitting that the only power the states have in this situation is ask for Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention to create amendments.
These are just some reasons to disallow the Convention of States or any other amendment proposing group from getting their hands on adding power to the Constitution that is not there originally from the brilliance of the Founders. Do you think the Founders were negligent by excluding a Parental Rights Amendment? They also didn't place a Marriage Amendment into the Constitution. The Founders did not put a right to healthcare or food into the Constitution either. Some things are wisely left to the citizens to morally act as best as they can on their own within the parameters of actual criminal behaviors. Parental rights are one of those things.
Whether or not you believe that Mr. Farris has been a champion of parents' rights for home-schooling or supporter of the Constitution, I don't believe his Convention of States effort is either a good idea or is what he is telling people it is. I think he is misleading people and that this is a dangerous route he wishes to take you down. Maybe he has all the good intentions in the world, I don't know. But by doing this Convention of States project, he is opening the door to every other group of people who wish to add "rights" to the U.S. Constitution. His followers in this try to tell you otherwise; that they can control what happens in Convention of States, which again, he admits is a Constitutional Convention. Mr. Farris and Mark Levin deliver all sorts of promises that this process can be controlled by them, but the process itself doesn't give them that authority. They are being deceitful, I'm sorry to say. For good intentions? I hope we know that is a method of sales pitch that we reject from the socialist and globalist left. Why would we take that from these guys?
May be more coming....if there will be a Part Three. This one page of research ought to make you stop in your tracks and rethink any support for Mr. Farris' Convention of States. Need I go on?
Some sources here:Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.