Replies

from Facebook: "Breitbart - One Voice Silenced, Millions Awakened"

Some people will do anything to sell a book. Because I disagree with the subject matter, I’ll not list names here. I don’t think you should buy any book that encourages an Article V Convention. It is tempting with the relentless usurpation of authority in Washington DC to consider this. But instead of taking the advice of attorneys, talk show hosts, and others in the intelligentsia, why don’t you do your own research and go read The Constitution and The Federalist Papers. See what you can find out for yourself about such a convention.

I did and here is what I discovered:

First, there are no rules in The Constitution that will regulate such a convention. We only know that “Amendments” (yes, it is plural) will be considered. There is no means to regulate which “Amendments” will be considered. In other words, well-meaning people enter the Con-Con (Constitutional Convention) believing that only their amendments will be brought up for consideration, but extremist groups from either side could bring others as well. There will be nothing to prevent this as there are no written rules in The Constitution.

Second, who will be the delegates? Will they be political leaders? That won’t work! They are already in office and we don’t like them. Will they be leaders from our favorite special interest groups? I know who my favorites are, and I’m certain the ACLU, the Communist Party USA, labor unions, and other groups have their delegates in mind as well.

But who gets to pick them? There is no mention of the delegate selection process written in The Constitution. Will these delegates be selected by Congress? Great, that’s what we need! I’m sure Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Boehner will do us proud. [insert note of sarcasm here] Perhaps each state should select their own delegates, but how many should they select? Does each state get one vote, as was the case in the original Constitutional Convention? Or should it be delegated by population, in which case, the larger states will have all the votes and smaller states will be irrelevant?

Once these delegates perform their duties at the convention, they will never have to run for re-election. This is a short term and one time job. Therefore, there is no accountability for these delegates. They could go and vote however they chose to vote, being completely disengaged from those they profess to represent.

Now, let’s just say we have these delegates together to pass “Amendments” on topics known but to God. According to our Constitution, when an Amendment is considered by Congress, it must pass through both houses before it can even leave the building to be considered by the several states. Either one of the two houses (made up of members who enjoy being re-elected a great deal and would do just about anything to make sure they are, including voting like the majority of their constituents tell them) can stop it if there are not enough votes. We the people can call our legislators and make this happen – we have on many occasions! Will we be able to do this in a single-chambered Con-Con? Anything they will vote on is done before we will know about it.

According to The Constitution, in order to ratify a Constitutional Amendment that has been passed by both houses of Congress, 38 of the 50 states must vote to approve it. In other words, it can still be stopped if it is a bad law. Since a Con-Con is not regulated, what is to prevent it from reducing this Article V requirement? We the people may very well have turned over all of our authority to nefarious powers. These delegates at a Con-Con are worse than Congress!

This is not an exhaustive list of problems with a Con-Con, but it will provide enough information for the better students among you to get started with your research. Don’t take my word for it. Do your own homework! Here are links.

~Temerity Dowell

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2013/08/27/schlafly-is-article-v-in-our-future/?subscriber=1

http://constitutionus.com/