"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." - Speech at the Constitutional Convention, July 11, 1787 James Madison
I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of Constitutional power." Thomas Jefferson
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ― James Madison
The words in the title of this article are not mine. They belong to the father of our Constitution, James Madison. Madison wrote a letter to G.I. Turberville when he was asked how he felt if another General Convention should be called. Here is what he wrote:
"You wish to know my sentiments on the project of (an Article V) Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans [sic] on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric."
"Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned."
This letter was written November 2, 1788, only one year after the original Constitutional Convention, and Madison was worried about the violent partizans, the heterogeneous characters, and the individuals of insidious views. His urgent warning is even more important today, 226 years later. I cannot think of one single politician or personage in any of the 50 states who could come close to matching the statesmanship of the founders who were delegates at our 1787 Constitutional Convention.
The letter to Turberville is so profound that the con-con promoters often deny that Madison was referring to an Article V convention. However, the John Birch Society did the research and found that absolutely, Madison knew New York was suggesting the convening of an Article V convention. Virginia applied to the new federal Congress for an Article V convention on November 14, 1788. New York followed suit on February 5, 1789. (JBS Bulletin, January 2014).
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, we fought a call for a con-con via a Balanced Budget Amendment (the same thing they're using today), and we educated the people enough that 10 of the states who put out a call for a con-con, recalled that call. It was very close. The enemy succeeded in getting 32 of the necessary 34 states to call for a convention. With God's help and the hard work of many patriots across the country, we succeeded in saving our Constitution. That was more than 30 years ago, and our electorate was far more educated then than it is today.
Unfortunately, today our fellow citizens listen to the neo-con talking heads like Michael Levin, Tom Coburn, Michael Farris, Lou Marin, The Goldwater Institute, Mark Meckler - formerly of Tea Party Patriots, American Legislative Exchange Council, Judge Roy Moore (who thinks he'll get an amendment ban on homosexual "marriage" with a con-con), David Barton, Glenn Beck, Occupy Wall Street, talk show host Neal Boortz, former presidential candidate Herman Cain, (both Boortz and Cain are Fair Tax promoters which calls for a con-con to get rid of the 16th amendment although we didn't need a con-con to get rid of the 18th amendment). Not one of these people are old-right conservatives. We must ask, who is funding the new push for a con-con?
The Money Behind Article V
There is no telling what some of the delegates will bring to the table no matter what "commission" they have instructing them (see Move to Amend below). One thing is certain, the LEFT, the progressives, the socialists, the Internationalists, the hardcore communists in our country, won't sit on the sidelines of such a Convention. They'll be in the convention and lobbying for their communist agenda.
There are hundreds and hundreds of Left-leaning organizations that want the Article V Convention so they can get "their man" in as a delegate to urge their amendments and Constitutional changes upon the deliberations of the Convention. These organizations have organized into a coalition called "Move to Amend." Here's the list of their member organizations. It would shock most conservatives to know who pays the bills at the online purveyor of progressive ideology. In fact, George Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the US. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. Yes, the financier of global fascism is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Farris, Meckler, Barton, and the rest of the neo-con Trotskyite right. One would think this would be enough alone to convince all true Constitutional conservatives and friends of freedom and liberty to run headlong away from the ranks of the Article V con-con army, regardless of how popular their purveyors may be. Link
If Soros and the left want it, why would any conservative back this? Are they duped? Or, as suspected, are they part of the agenda as they were in the early 80s when we fought this?
Precedents and Legal Conclusions
Legal experts have long concluded that if a convention is ever called under Article V of the Constitution, it would have the power to propose anything it wanted — a rewrite of the Bill of Rights, the abolition of the Supreme Court — anything. I've written about this extensively (Link), as has Publius Huldah,
John Birch Society, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum and others.
Under that never-used Article V, a convention would be mandatory upon the call of at least two-thirds (34) of the states. Pushed by tea-party groups and the so-called conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, as well as all the above listed right and left organization, similar resolutions are moving or have already passed in Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Alabama and a number of other states
We don't see any George Washington's or James Madison's today, and we don't want to put our fate in the hands of men who think they can improve on the work of either of these men or the other delegates at the 1787 Convention.
Stanford Law School Professor
Gerald Gunther also wrote "The fear that a Constitutional convention could become a 'runaway' convention and propose wholesale changes in our Constitution is by no means unfounded. Rather, this broad view of the authority of a convention reflects the consensus of most constitutional scholars who have commented on the issue." As well, Professor Gunther, whose case-book is used in the majority of U.S. law schools, said that, "even if Congress tried to limit the Convention to one subject, the delegates could decide for themselves that the Convention "is entitled to set its own agenda."
Chief Justice Warren Burger, wrote: "I have been asked questions about this topic many times during my news conferences and at college meetings since I became Chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, and I have repeatedly replied that such a convention would be a grand waste of time. 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. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda. With George Washington as chairman, the [original constitutional convention] deliberated in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation."
We have far too many uneducated fools in our electorate today...and this, as the elite have planned, will be our downfall if we allow the left and the neo-con right to succeed in pushing a Balanced Budget Amendment, Article V, or Convention of States, etc.
The fact is, under the vague language of Article V, a Constitutional Convention cannot be limited. It would be wide open, and able to consider ANY change in the Constitution that was proposed, even eliminating everything after "We The People."
This means that, even if supporters of a "Con-Con" claim that the convention would only cover one issue -- whether it's a Balanced Budget Amendment or removing the requirement that to be eligible to serve as President, one must be a "natural born citizen," or anything else -- there is NO WAY to stop the Convention from changing EVERYTHING that we hold dear in America!
Use Common Sense!
Forget all the pro- con-con scholars and talking heads you've heard and read!
- If the Congress and administration won't obey the Constitution we have now, how will changing or adding amendments make them obey it? Answer: It won't. That is not the hidden purpose of a new Constitutional convention.
- Who is worthy of being a delegate in this whole United States? True old right Constitutional conservatives and scholars will never have a chance.
- If George Soros and his cadre of leftists want a con-con and are funding it, why in heaven's name would the right go along with it?
Waiting in the Wings
It was the Ford Foundation, in 1964, who funded and orchestrated the drafting of a new constitution for America. This was done via the tax-exempt Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, an offshoot of "The Fund for the Republic, Inc., which had been established with a $15 million grant from the Ford Foundation.
This model constitution, drawing upon the efforts of more than 100 people, took ten years to write. The 40th draft was the one published in Rexford G. Tugwell's book, "The Emerging Constitution." The project cost $2.5 million per year, or a total of $25 million, and produced the Proposed Constitution for the NewStates of America. Tugwell was for Regional Governance. This is Communism in all its vicious and rotten glory.
After the completion of the proposed NewStates Constitution (1974), Nelson Rockefeller, then president of the U.S. Senate, engineered the introduction of HCR 28 calling for an unlimited Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) in 1976. Public opposition defeated this effort so the convention backers then went to the states promoting a "limited convention" for the ostensible purpose of adding a balanced budget amendment.
There is nothing new today. The same old premise is being used. Unfortunately, the con artists have become quite slick and the legislators no longer read history. Once the Constitution is opened, all other battles, big and small, will be useless. The great experiment of a Republic (if we can keep it) will be over.
There are no quick fixes to the problem of adhering to the Constitution. It must be through an educated electorate that forces Congress to follow the Constitution. It's not a quick fix, but it is the long term solution for returning to limited government and individual prosperity. We can only win if soldiers join the battle and we pray continually.
May God have mercy on those of us who love liberty and freedom.