Posted on 03/13/2014 5:42:36 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
The Oklahoma state House of Representatives decided not to apply for a constitutional convention.
Oklahoma Won't Apply for Con-Con, Votes Not There
13 March 2014
After a close battle that featured several late nights, the Oklahoma State House of Representatives has decided not to vote to apply for a constitutional convention (con-con) under the authority of Article V of the Constitution. Put simply, the votes needed to approve the con-con application were not there, and it's now dead for this year's legislative session in Oklahoma.
This is a crucial victory in the struggle to protect the Constitution and the fundamental liberties it protects from the possible ravages that could result from a second constitutional convention.
Dr. Mike Ritze, a key member of the constitutionally minded bloc of the Oklahoma House of Representatives who successfully derailed the Con-Con locomotive in the Sooner State, told The New American that the fight was close and the hour was late, but in the end, a majority of his colleagues decided “they did not want to open the Pandora’s box of a con-con.” Ritze supports state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws as the far safer approach for reining in the federal government.
The good doctor’s sense of the threat to freedom posed by an Article V convention is right. Historically, constitutionally, and legally such a convention as is being promoted by many on the Right and the Left is unsafe and built on the weak foundation of the hope that delegates to such a convention would preserve the Constitution as we know it today.
Opponents like Dr. Ritze, however, prefer to follow the sound advice of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, “In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”
Advocates of an Article V convention counter that there are safeguards built into the process that would ultimately protect the Constitution from amendments that could repeal the Bill of Rights.
The problem with such comforting promises, however, is that a con-con would not be peopled with delegates devoted to keeping the core principles of the Constitution intact. Rather, there are billions being spent by George Soros and other admitted socialists and progressives who admit to aiming at making fundamental changes to the Constitution should an Article V convention actually occur.
The New American has covered the manifold menaces lurking within the Article V con-con movement. Ritze reports that many of these articles and other materials produced by The New American were instrumental in convincing his colleagues in the Oklahoma House to choose not to call for a con-con.
Of course, the claim that without such a convention the country will soon fall into ruin and annihilation was the very attitude anti-Federalists once called "the argument of tyrants."
Friends of the Constitution congratulate Dr. Ritze and his fellow representatives for their wise decision to protect the Constitution from tinkering by those anxious to take a wrench to the delicate gears of our Republic.
The battle is not over, however. Legislatures in several states are considering similar bills supporting calls for a con-con of one sort or another. Liberty minded citizens in every state, therefore, are encouraged to contact their state representatives and senators, informing them of their opposition to an Article V con-con and to familiarize these lawmakers with the significant and irreparable harm that such a convention could do to our Constitution and the liberties it protects.
Good. Wanna kill the Constitution? Have this convention.
So Ritze’s scare tactics were successful in persuading OK representatives that a CON-CON would ‘ravage’ the Bill of Rights and especially given Soros’ billions the entire Constitution would be at risk.
Sounds like what is needed is a leader who can educate legislators to the reality that 2/3s of legislatures are required to propose an amendment and 3/4s are required to ratify a proposed amendment.
For Soros to accomplish an overthrow of the US Constitution by rewriting it he would need to buy off thousands of legislators in each state. Somehow I don’t think our United States is that far gone yet, at least not at the state levels.
You need to educate yourself about Article V Convention of the States
and not be one of those who spread disinformation.
Bump in the road to constitutional restoration, Article V Ping!
There's no doubt he's conservative.
It appears he has hitched his wagon to the dead horse of nullification. For some reason, proponents of nullification recoil from Article V and paint us as George Soros worshipers whose dark objective is to surreptitiously undermine that which no longer exists, the 1787 constitution.
If you haven't, check out the link within the column by lawyer Joe Wolverton. Among his distortions in supposed support of the Constitution, he cites a quote from the Anti-Federalist Centinel! The intent is to slam us as blind followers of Mark Levin and COS.
Wolverton is smooth and dangerous. We should follow and respond to this guy whenever possible.
COS posted a point by point refutation a few weeks ago. Good ammo for us.
http://www.utahtalkradio.com/Wolverton-Joe.html
Looks like he is a genuine conservative, like the members of the JBS, but really feels the Convention of the States is the wrong way to go.
I disagree with him adamantly on the Convention of the States, but appreciate his concerns.
This is why we conservatives are always at cross-ends in trying to defeat the left. They are a monolithic movement of insentient drones. We are composed of people who think and people who think will tend to disagree.
I hope and pray that Oklahoma's action can be reversed as I truly believe that only by amending some selected parts of the Constitution to address abuses the Founding Fathers could never have conceptualized, can e save our republic.
At the same time, I do not reject nullification. I feel these are both useful tools in dealing with the statists and Bolsheviks who are opposing us in the Federal Government.
I don’t see nullification resolutions alone as doing harm. Nullification is useful to the extent it expresses the will of a state.
For some reason, many who support nullification are typically against and horribly mistaken in their opposition to Article V.
Educate yourself... You sound like you are from DU...
There are GREAT resources up thread that explain it’s not a “con-con”... ANYTHING out of the COS has to be ratified by 38 states to become PART of the constitution...
When ONE Governor STOPS taking a PENNY from DC & more importantly STOPS sending taxes TO Washington AND mobilizes their States National Guard then get back to me on Nullification...
Conservatives eat their own.
*sigh*-bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.