South Carolina Ping 
Send FReepmail to join or leave this list.
Keep up with what our Congresscritters (House and Senate) are doing. Sign up for the free MegaVote email service here.
Ping PS - Visit the SC FReepers discussion board here.
Posted on 03/23/2016 1:39:43 AM PDT by Jacquerie
An email from COS:
We are ever so close to passing our Convention of States Project resolution and having South Carolina become the 7th state to pass this historic Article V application. We have the votes in both chambers to pass the resolution on the chamber floor. Unfortunately we are being held up in both our House and Senate by two individuals. We thought we could get this done on our own, but the time has come to ask our sister states to help us. We need MASSIVE pressure put on the two individuals below for the reasons I will describe for each:
South Carolina State Senator Brad Hutto is singlehandedly holding up the Convention of States Project resolution S 198. Last year when our historic resolution passed the full Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hutto exercised the ridiculous rule in the South Carolina legislature that permits a single member of the minority party (Democrats) to hold up a bill from getting to a vote on the floor of the Senate. We have the votes to pass our historic resolution in South Carolina to become the 7th state to join the effort to rein in the out of control and staggering power drunken federal government. Please call District 40 Senator Brad Hutto and ask him to remove the Minority Report on the Convention of States Project resolution S 198. Tell him all we want is a chance for an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate…tell him to let the legislative process work. Also, please let him know that we want him to not only remove his minority report but that we want him to ensure that no other Democrat does the same thing once he removes it. If you are speaking to his secretary, ask her politely to please give him that message. Please be firm but respectful. If you are identified as an out of state caller, please let them know that this is a national effort and you have a stake in saving our country.
Please contact Senator Hutto at (803) 212-6140 during the days of Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday at his Senate office. If he is not there, give the above message to his secretary or leave a detailed voicemail. Email: Here.
South Carolina State Representative Greg Delleney is one of the members of five members of the Constitutional Law subcommittee. Rep. Delleney also happens to be the chairman of the full House Judiciary Committee. Our resolution on the House side has languished in the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Constitutional Law now since last year. Last year we went through three full hearings…and over FIVE HOURS of testimony…both for and against. It has become very apparent to us that Rep. Delleney is the holdup. He has been opposed to the Convention of States Project from the beginning due to the same old argument of a “runaway convention”. Rep. Delleney has vacillated back forth with us on this…indicating at one point to us that he was “moving” our way…we had former United States Senator Tom Coburn sit down with him and explain this out to him. We had renowned Constitutional scholar Michael Farris come down here and sit in Rep. Delleney’s office and explain this to him. And now we feel like he is simply playing us to run out the clock this year.
Please call Rep. Delleney at (803)-734-3120 during the days of Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday at his House office and make it clear to him that you are sick of this holdup of H 3177 in the Judiciary Committee and that you want it to go to the floor for an up or down vote. If you are speaking to his secretary, ask her politely to please give him that message. Please be firm but respectful. If you are identified as an out of state caller, please let them know that this is a national effort and you have a stake in saving our country. Email: Here.
Article V Ping!
Take a few minutes to explain why an Article V state amendments convention is so desperately needed.
Many equate an Article V state amendments convention with congress, an institution in which freedoms and rights are easily traded away today for money, media support, and reelection tomorrow.
This is an erroneous comparison, for congress is popularly derived and thoroughly corrupted from its designed purposes. An Article V convention will be new, fresh, uncorrupted and federal, just like the only other remaining federal institution from 1787, the familiar Electoral College (EC).
If the states are so wild and politically insane such as to fear the outcome of a convention, why haven’t we had a “runaway” session of the EC? States do not have to cast their votes for the nominee of any political party. The EC confab is a one-day event outside the control of congress or scotus. Why hasn’t the EC proved to be dangerous?
No state delegation to the EC “ran away” because the duties of presidential electors are defined by state statute. Delegates to Article V conventions will arrive with detailed commissions backed up by statute with felony punishment for violations. Unlike representatives to congress, delegates to an Article V convention will serve their states and the national interest, and not themselves.
Furthermore, there will be an additional, yet immeasurable factor at work. Within the parameters of detailed state commissions, delegates will be entrusted to use their judgement. These men and women know that history will examine and critique their work. Will the states actually send rogues and miscreants? It is possible, yet what is far more likely is that the delegates entrusted with crafting amendments to save the republic will rise to the occasion. Fame and the respect of history will be their goal.
No society ever met to frame their ruling institutions in order to sell themselves into slavery. While the American tradition and society are certainly under duress, resistance is in the air. It is time to take advantage of the building wave of opposition to consolidated government.
Please reconsider your opposition.
Ain’t gonna happen no matter how much outside pressure you put on them. just mount a campaign to primary them, if you still can. That is the only pressure they will listen to.
A campaign to limit senators to two consecutive terms is in order. This is needed badly to unseat the Harry Reid’s and Mitch McConnells that are such a thorn in the foot of the American people.cannot continue to be so. Same with Supreme Vourt Justices but maybe 8 year terms max for them.
This was specific to the voters of South Carolina although I do agree in general with your referral to the Federal offices.
The Electoral College has proven itself to be dangerous by voting for Presidential candidates who were not natural born citizens and were not eligible under the Constitution to serve as Vice President or President of the United States of America. The people who would rewrite the Constitution have already demonstrated an incapability and unwillingness to respect and abide by the current Constitution. Therefore, the Citizens of the United States have every good reason to suspect a Convention of States at this time can be abused to destroy the Constitution, rather than restore its original purpose and authority.
Ping for action later
Facts not in evidence. Your contention about the electoral college is only a matter of opinion on your part, which opinion is not backed up by any legal findings. You may have some basis for your belief about constitutional ineligibility, but at this time that is just your unsupported opinion, not a fact. As for the rest of your fear about an Article V convention, you do know that anything coming out of such a convention will have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures to go into effect, right? If you believe that there are that many state legislatures that will vote to destroy the Constitution, I think you should seek counseling.
South Carolina Ping Keep up with what our Congresscritters (House and Senate) are doing. Sign up for the free MegaVote email service here.
Ping PS - Visit the SC FReepers discussion board here.
“If you believe that there are that many state legislatures that will vote to destroy the Constitution, I think you should seek counseling.”
I think Doug Loss is more in need of counseling than WhiskeyX. Judging by what comes out of state legislatures, including my own state of South Carolina which is called by some the “most conservative” state in the union, I see no reason to believe they can be trusted. When someone convinces me that we can make the government live by the present constitution I will be willing to talk about new amendments and not before but so far no one seems to have any good ideas about how to get any one of the three branches of the federal government to pay any attention to the existing constitution unless it happens to agree with what they themselves want, otherwise it is ignored. Why would a doctor prescribe a new medication for a patient who steadfastly refuses to take any medication previously prescribed? There is no longer even a pretense of following the constitution and most Americans, including most of those in government, have little to no understanding of the constitution and no inclination to study it. How on Earth can anyone imagine that changing it is going to have any kind of positive result?
“Facts not in evidence. Your contention about the electoral college is only a matter of opinion on your part, which opinion is not backed up by any legal findings.”
Those statements statement are a false assertions frequently used to lie to and defraud the voters. One of the numerous examples of such legal evidence is the U.S. Supreme Court observation: United State v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
“You may have some basis for your belief about constitutional ineligibility, but at this time that is just your unsupported opinion, not a fact.”
The observations of ineligibility are supported by the Law of Nature, the common law, the Law of Nations, English naturalization statutes extending back into the 14th Century, Roman law, U.S. Naturalization Acts, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Acts, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the U.S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual, and a number of attorneys-at-law who are respected authorities on Constitutional law. So, your statement constitutes a lie insofar as you made a false statement while knowing full well you neglected to discover its truth or falsity.
“As for the rest of your fear about an Article V convention, you do know that anything coming out of such a convention will have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures to go into effect, right? If you believe that there are that many state legislatures that will vote to destroy the Constitution, I think you should seek counseling.”
Wrong! One of many examples is how the States ratified the 17th Amendment, which surrendered any power the State legislature previously had to elect a U.S. Senator, who was supposed to be a delegate from that State and not an independent agent nearly immune from being removed from office.
So do you support the status quo or do you have an alternative to a convention?
Attacks on the U.S. Constitution are coming from all sides - sadly even some misguided conservatives have joined the Left on this issue.
One liberal professor - in the pages of The New York Times - calls our Constitution "imbecilic." Another claims it contains "archaic" and "evil provisions."
One even urges us to "rewrite the Second Amendment."
Out of exasperation with Barack Obama's flouting of the Constitution - and the Republican Congress' willingness to help carry out Obama's liberal agenda - a few conservative authors and pundits have joined these left-wing opponents of our Constitution.
Together they are promoting a national convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
These ill-advised conservatives wrongly believe a series of amendments can put our country on a wiser path.
The authority for such a procedure is Article V of our Constitution, so they are calling their plan of action an Article V Convention.
However, they are fooling themselves when they suggest that Article V creates a path to bypass Congress with a "convention of states."
In a convention setting, the U.S. Congress would get a major say in how the process will work.
The only power the states have under Article V is the opportunity to submit an "application" (petition) asking Congress to call a convention. Hundreds of such applications have been submitted over the years, with widely different purposes and wording. Many applications were later rescinded, and some purport to make the application valid for only a particular amendment such as a federal balanced budget or congressional term limits.
Article V states that Congress "shall" call a convention on the application of two-thirds of state legislatures, or thirty-four (34) of them.
The key question is this: how will Congress count valid applications?
The answer is, we don't know, and so far Congress has ignored them anyway.
If Congress ever decides to act, Article V gives Congress exclusive power to issue the "Call" for a convention to propose "amendments" (plural).
The "Call" is the governing document which determines all the basic rules such as where and when a convention will be held, who is eligible to be a delegate (will current office-holders be eligible?), how delegates will be apportioned, how expenses will be paid, and who will be the chairman.
Article V also gives Congress the power to determine whether the three-fourths of the states required for ratification of amendments can ratify by the state legislature's action or by state conventions.
Do you trust the current U.S. Congress to determine the rules for how the Constitution will be rewritten?
The most important question to which there is no answer is this: how will convention delegates be apportioned?
Will each state have one vote (no matter how many delegates it sends), which was the rule in the 1787 Philadelphia convention?
Or will the convention be apportioned according to population (like Congress or the Electoral College)?
Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision.
If Congress decides apportionment will be determined by population, more populous states will control the outcome.
Do you want California or New York deciding how the U.S. Constitution should read?
Article V doesn't give any power to the states to propose constitutional amendments, or to decide which amendments will be considered by the convention.
Now imagine Democratic and Republican conventions meeting in the same hall and trying to agree on constitutional changes. Imagine the gridlock in drafting a constitutional plank by caucuses led by Sarah Palin and Al Sharpton.
Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody's guess.
Advocates of an Article V convention can hope and speculate, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true.
If we follow the model of the 1787 Convention, will the deliberations be secret? Are you kidding me? Nothing is secret any more.
What are the plans to deal with protesters at what would surely be the biggest media event of the year, if not of the century? It will be flooded with agitators from the gun-control lobby, the gay lobby, the abortion lobby, the green lobby, plus experienced protesters trained and even paid with George Soros money.
There is no proof that the VIPs promoting an Article V convention have any first-hand knowledge of the politics or procedures of a contested national convention. Don't they realize that the convention will set its own agenda and that states will have no say over which amendments are considered?
To see how a convention chairman wielding the gavel can manipulate outcomes, take for instance the 2012 Democratic National Convention.
A delegate tried to add a reference to God to the party platform, but the chairman ruthlessly called the vote wrong even though we all saw on television that the "Noes" won the vote.
The whole Article V "Convention of States" process is a prescription for political chaos.
Alas, I don't see any George Washingtons, James Madisons or Ben Franklins around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I'm worried about the men who think they can.
Phyllis Schlafly
I certainly don’t support the status quo, I have been trying to warn people for fifty years or more about what was coming and drove most of them away because they thought I was nuts, now they are seeing even worse than I ever predicted. The alternative I see is not something I want to talk about on this forum unfortunately.
I assume you support the theory of republican government to the extent that statutory lawmaking requires the consent of the people. You have no problem with regular elections, no problem with the exercise of the people’s Article I § 2 electoral capacity to identify and empower certain men and women to write statutes.
However, you oppose the exercise of the people’s sovereign capacity recognized in our Declaration and Article V of our Constitution, which is the God-given societal right to write law superior to, and supreme over statutory law.
Is my summary accurate?
Try reading what Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly has to say and stop trying to put it on me. There are pros and cons to a Con Con which may produce the exact opposite of the desired affect. Then the Constitution as it now is written will be lost forever. Better to get people who respect the Constitution, than to tinker with the Constitution.
Beyond that, what is to prevent them from ignoring even positive results from a Con Con just like they now ignore the Constitution? In my opinion the answer is nothing.
Aside from Article V, do you oppose the exercise of any other Constitutional rights?
Phyllis Stewart Schlafly is a retired American constitutional lawyer, and I respect what she has to say.
So what exactly is your point, other than trying to pretend your are more conservative than me? Which by the way, you are not.
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.