Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 08/15/2009 7:54:39 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:

See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2316649/posts



Skip to comments.

BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
Email | August 15, 2009 | Human Events

Posted on 08/15/2009 7:11:24 AM PDT by Sen Jack S. Fogbound

BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:

HELP US STOP A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!

Dear Friend,

BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE AMENDMENT PROCESS -- IN FACT, THEY'RE TRYING TO REWRITE THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION -- AND THEY'RE CLOSE TO SUCCEEDING!

What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, which repealed the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Free Speech?

What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which repealed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Keep and Bear Arms? (A right that the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld!)

"That could never happen," you say. "No one would allow it!" Right? Well...

Did you know that there are TWO ways that our Constitution can be changed? And did you know that Pelosi, Reid and Barack Obama are using the less well-known way, without having to actually introduce amendments?

IT'S TRUE -- and WE have to stop it NOW!

One way to change the Constitution is to go through the amendment process -- a long and tedious process requiring two-thirds of both houses of Congress to pass an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states to ratify it.

That means a "super-majority" of our representatives at the National and State levels would have to be in favor of the amendment -- which safeguards us from the possibility of really "bad" amendments.

BUT... there is one other way that our Constitution can be changed... and it DOES NOT require all of those elected representatives to be in favor of it. It's called a Constitutional Convention, and all that it requires is 34 states to ask Congress to call one.

In fact, right now, all that is needed is for two more states to ask for a Constitutional Convention... and the basic law of the land could be changed forever by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid!

WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: CLICK HERE NOW!

Most people don't realize that Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention (a "Con Con") if two-thirds (or 34) of the states request it. We've only had one other "Con Con" in our history: the one where the original Constitution was written in 1787!

The language of Article V is mandatory: it says that Congress "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" whenever requests are received from two-thirds of the states. Note that the word "amendments" is used in the plural. These are the only instructions we have about a Constitutional Convention. There are no other rules or guidelines.

We don't know how a Constitutional Convention would be apportioned, or how the delegates would be elected. We don't know what rules the Convention would operate under. We don't know whether changes to the Constitution could be proposed by a simple majority, or would require a super majority, of those attending. We don't know if the agenda could be limited or would be wide open to any proposal.

We don't know ANYTHING about how a Con Con would work -- which means that it will come down to Congress setting the rules!

And Congress is controlled by the most radically liberal Democrats in American history! Is that who we want to be in charge of a new Constitutional Convention?

Do we want BARACK OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI, and HARRY REID to completely rewrite our most basic document of law?

WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: CLICK HERE NOW!

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!

Former U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once said, "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."

The Stanford Law School Professor whose case-book is used in the majority of U.S. law schools, Gerald Gunther, 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."

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!

Barack Obama and his far-left supporters would be able to get THEIR people appointed as delegates to the Convention, so that THEIR agendas would be the Convention's agenda, and THEIR plans for socialism in America would come to pass.

Say BYE-BYE to the First Amendment's freedom of speech -- Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity could be taken off the air.

Say BYE-BYE to the Second Amendment's right to bear arms -- a total gun ban could be the law of the land!

Say BYE-BYE to the Constitution's requirement that to serve as President a man or a woman must be a "natural born citizen"!

You KNOW that's what they'll do if given the chance -- and we're only TWO STATES AWAY from seeing a Constitutional Convention convened!

You see, Article V says that it takes a request from two-thirds of the states to force a "Con Con" -- but it doesn't say there's any time limit on getting to that total!

Thirty-two states have already issued a call for a "Con Con" over the last few decades, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

It only takes 34 states to REQUIRE a Constitutional Convention be convened!

Some states, like Georgia, Virginia, and others, have since voted to "rescind" their call for a "Con Con" -- BUT no one is sure whether those "rescission" votes are actually Constitutional...so the danger is REAL!

WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: CLICK HERE NOW!

The United States Justice Foundation is launching a major campaign to STOP a "Con Con" from taking place -- WE MUST CREATE a tremendous outpouring of publicity and public scrutiny to be given to this danger, so that Barack Obama and his radical liberal allies can't "sneak this past us" without anyone noticing, until it's too late. Right now, our staff is conducting legal and historical research, and preparing legal opinions, to submit to every state legislature, if necessary, and we'll be offering to represent any state, or state legislator, in fighting the Con-Con based on those documents.

We're also going to be leading a grassroots effort to attack this issue at both the state and federal levels: At the state level, leading the charge in every state to either NOT VOTE for a "Con Con" (if they haven't voted yet) or to RESCIND their past vote in favor (if they have). And, at the federal level, we'll be mobilizing citizens across the country to contact their Representatives and Senators to DEMAND that they come out, NOW, and announce their support for a state's right to rescind, and that they won't support a call for a "Con-Con." In addition, we'll be calling on the Attorney General of the United States, and the Attorney General of each and every State that has passed a "Con-Con" resolution, to issue an official Opinion on the legality of rescission.

THIS DANGER IS REAL. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called for the exclusive purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Once the Founding Fathers assembled in Philadelphia, however, they threw out the Articles of Confederation and wrote an entirely new Constitution, and even changed the ratification procedure so they could get it adopted more easily. The 1787 Convention is the only precedent we have for a national Constitutional Convention.

There's no guarantee that all of the changes to our Constitution passed at a Constitutional Convention would need to be ratified by 34 states this time -- if a "Con Con" can change our structure of government as defined in Articles I, II, and III, of the Constitution, then it can also change the Article V requirement that three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify any changes. The Convention of 1787 reduced the number of states required to ratify a change from 100% of the states to 75%, and a Convention today could "follow their example" and reduce it further, to 66%, or 60%, or even 51%!

WE MUST NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!

There's very little time to ramp this project up to FULL SPEED -- we need to raise at least $100,000 to prepare and distribute legal opinions, lobby state legislators and begin our grassroots activism campaign this coming month. Please, CLICK HERE NOW to make your best possible donation, and let's STOP Obama, Pelosi and Reid from ripping our Constitution to shreds, and re-writing it to their own socialist goals!

Sincerely,

Gary Kreep, Executive Director United States Justice Foundation

P.S. President Barack Obama has already expressed his belief that the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events. Can you imagine what he and his supporters would DO to that document if given the chance to re-write it completely? Our Bill of Rights could disappear overnight!

In fact, all the way back in 2006, Obama already had his lawyers researching how someone could get around the eligibility requirements to serve as U.S. President -- these people simply don't CARE about whether we preserve the supreme law of the land!

Remember -- when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a whole new Constitution.

That's EXACTLY what Obama, Pelosi and Reid would do this time -- but this time, the result would destroy our freedoms. Please, CLICK HERE NOW to help us STOP them. Thank you!

WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: CLICK HERE NOW!

To donate by check, make payable to: United States Justice Foundation 932 D Street Suite 1 Ramona, CA 92065


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: chat; duplicate; solicitation
This is from the HUMAN EVENT as received by email. It this a scam or the real thing?

Can some of the Legal Beagles among the Freepers can comment on this?

It seems to be if that should come to pass, the States choose the delegates, not the Congress. They can stay the hell out of it!

Any comments on this?

1 posted on 08/15/2009 7:11:24 AM PDT by Sen Jack S. Fogbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound

Yes, it’s true Congress can call a constitutional convention. I’m not sure how many delegates have to vote to change a part of the constitution.


2 posted on 08/15/2009 7:13:49 AM PDT by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound

Go Ahead...make my day! I don’t believe Obama, Pelosi and the Czars would go down that path, which is a sure-fire way to start a revolution and-or inflame secession movements.


3 posted on 08/15/2009 7:18:10 AM PDT by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound

I’m confused by it....I thought, for some reason, there were many on the right calling FOR a Constitutional Convention. I’ll be interested in reading some posts from more knowledgeable freepers who can explain.


4 posted on 08/15/2009 7:18:13 AM PDT by Kimberly GG (Sarah Palin supports a "path to citizenship" = AMNESTY for illegal aliens. .... DEMINT '12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound
“What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, which repealed the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights — taking away our right to Free Speech?”

I think she would be arrested and tried for treason.

5 posted on 08/15/2009 7:19:18 AM PDT by BigCinBigD ('Evil white devil since 1960')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound

OBAMA'S BRIDGE TOO FAR


THE STORM UNLEASHED ON AMERICA

A PETITION ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RESTORATION

6 posted on 08/15/2009 7:19:53 AM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound

Health care reform and cap and tax both are unconstitutional if one studies the provisions and precepts.
Democrats are communists and most left wing voters do not realize their evil and how they will destroy America.
Americans voted in the first communist administration and that is their sin.


7 posted on 08/15/2009 7:21:02 AM PDT by kindred (A third party of conservatives only is the only answer. You can not put new wine in old wineskin's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound
The Constitution only means what ever the 9 political hacks that sit on the Supreme Court say it does. I don't think they've read it in years.
8 posted on 08/15/2009 7:26:19 AM PDT by Husker24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound

A “Con Con”? Usually, for something to have a nickname, it needs to have some historical examples to give some resonance to the nickname.

Sure, there is a provision for such an event, but absent any evidence of any groundswell toward a constitutional convention, how can the authoring group possibly use such an improbable stretch as a fundraising campaign?


9 posted on 08/15/2009 7:27:31 AM PDT by Migraine (Diversity is great... ...until it happens to YOU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kindred

“Health care reform and cap and tax both are unconstitutional if one studies the provisions and precepts.
Democrats are communists and most left wing voters do not realize their evil and how they will destroy America.
Americans voted in the first communist administration and that is their sin.”

Most of what the government at all levels does is unconstitutional, and it doesn’t matter which party is in power.


10 posted on 08/15/2009 7:28:08 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound
It's false.

Any Amendment proposed by a Convention needs to be ratified by 38 states.

11 posted on 08/15/2009 7:29:08 AM PDT by Jim Noble (I hope Sarah will start a 2nd party soon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Looks like a typical email spam... the first tipoff? “Dear Friend...”
Things like this have been going around for years.


12 posted on 08/15/2009 7:29:48 AM PDT by jblann1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound

It’s that place and time in the historical path of the progress of our Nation for there to be a Constitutional Convention for adjustments to be made to the Constitution to clarify, or strengthen some of the language in the Constitution to lessen the chances of successful Leftist judicial activism, and to ease the defense of founding intent.

It’s not the place and time in the historical path of this Nation for such a Constitutional Convention with unbalanced leadership in place.

What it is genuinely time for is a remake of the scene in Washington D.C. that would reflect the vision of the founders.

We have to stop what we are doing no matter what it is right now, and clean up the mess we’ve allowed to accumulate so we can progress unencumbered by the build-up of undesireable debris.


13 posted on 08/15/2009 7:30:39 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists...Call 'em What you Will, They ALL have Fairies Living In Their Trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound

The proposed amendments to strike the First and Second from the record would be supported by the country as the change we need, as well as supported by people like Graham as a bipartisan effort.


14 posted on 08/15/2009 7:32:25 AM PDT by wastedyears (The Tree is thirsty and the hogs are hungry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: broken_arrow1

I agree, the honemoon is dead and buried and even some of the dems are seeing that the kick back is very real.

If they tried this, it would be far more than political sucide.


15 posted on 08/15/2009 7:37:14 AM PDT by BornToBeAmerican (We the people, ..... never)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

>>> Any Amendment proposed by a Convention needs to be ratified by 38 states. <<<<

I don’t understand how so many people who hav access to the Internet and read FR are bamboozled by these hysterical marketing spams.

It took less than 10 seconds to find this on the Internet:

U.S. Constitution - Article 5

Article 5 - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;


16 posted on 08/15/2009 7:39:06 AM PDT by angkor (The U.S. Congress is at war with America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson