Acall for a Constitutional Convention

[Babagounj]

To my colleagues in the S.C. General Assembly:

As you know, President Obama and Congress have – against the wishes of the majority of the citizens of this nation – enacted a law forcing all citizens to participate in government-run health care.

I believe this action, left unchallenged, is the beginning of the end of the America we know and love. The freedoms we have enjoyed in our lifetimes are being steadily eroded, and future generations will suffer the consequences. The time has come for bold action, and I am asking you today to join me in leading this bold action.

While there are other steps being considered, I am not certain that any of them can be successful. Planned lawsuits, I am informed by legal experts, will not likely be successful. Repeal efforts, while noble, would most certainly be vetoed by the President, and upheld by his congressional majority. State legislative “nullification” actions will almost certainly be overturned by the courts.

As I have carefully researched this matter to find a solution, I have found but one sure-fire way to overturn the new socialized medicine law: a constitutional convention, called for by the states, as provided for in Article Five of the United States Constitution.

I am asking you to support a legislative resolution calling for a constitutional convention, hopefully by joining as a sponsor of the resolution which, at my request, is already being prepared by Senators Campbell and Cleary in the Senate, and Representatives Frye and Scott in the House.

If we in South Carolina, along with 33 other state legislatures, pass a resolution calling for a national constitutional convention, we will be able to make an amendment to the constitution to reverse the dangerous action taken by Obama and Congress, which will then need to be ratified by 38 state legislatures.

While this action is bold, it is nonetheless an actual, workable solution. (As you may recall, this is the same action that Senator McConnell, probably our state’s foremost legislative authority, suggested to help solve the illegal immigration stalemate.)

For your convenience, I am including the pertinent article of the U.S. Constitution below:

Article V – 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…

I am asking you to act quickly to join as a sponsor of this legislation so that we can move NOW to reverse this law. Every day this law is allowed to stand is day of oppression of the basic freedoms which have symbolized America. (Today and tomorrow, I am contacting other state legislatures to ask them to initiate similar resolutions.)

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call or email. You may reach me by phone at 803-734-2080 or by email at [email protected].

Thank you,


Andre Bauer

cc: Legislative leadership, all 50 states

 

[wkmac]

Political Grandstanding because they lack the guts to actually succeed again!

Abolish the Damn Constitution. The anti-federalist were right in that it was flawed from the get go and history proves that out beyond any doubt!

 

[AmandaMoore]

Constitutional Scholars warn against CON CON
* Once a Con Con is called it cannot be limited in scope. Dr. Edwin Vieira, Chief Warren Burger and others explain article V.
* Legislators can apply to congress for a convention but have no power over what the topics which will be considered. the danger as laid out in an Article V video.
* Article V sets up a 3 step process step 1. 2/3s of the legislatures apply to congress to call a convention.
step 2. Congress calls the convention while deciding other details, such as where the the convention will meet, how delegates are to be paid and how much. They decide how many delegates there will be and how they are chosen. NOTE that nothing in the Constitution says that they delegates will be elected by the people. Congress is given a free hand in determining the method of selecting these delegates. Congress can choose the delegates because they are given a blank check. they can provide for an election but it is not required. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg has warned that the absence of specific language to guarantee that we choose, could put the convention in control of special interest."... the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a run away convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our well-being."
The congress can determine how many delegates each state shall have but note that the Constitution does not even guarantee that every state is entitled to a least one delegate.
step 3. "... a convention for proposing amendments..." that language clearly shows that ONLY the convention can decide how many amendments will be proposed and what subjects should be addressed. Supreme Court Justices and the nations leading legal scholars have written separately and privately that single issue subjects cannot be enforced and that once a convention is called the convention is free to call any number of amendments. [video=youtube;za8_pdJ1dPo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za8_pdJ1dPo&feature=channel_page[/video]
1. Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
The following letter, from Chief Justice Burger.
Supreme Court of the United States
"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. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose."
With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate 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.
Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a "miracle." Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention. In these bicentennial years, we should be celebrating its long life, not challenging its very existence. Whatever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/burger.htm
(3) Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg
Arthur Joseph Goldberg served as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1962 to 1965.
See Articles of Freedom http://www.givemeliberty.org/
(4) original http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html Continental Congress 2009 http://www.cc2009.us/

 

[wkmac]

Edwin Viera, for those who favor a small, limited gov't with a monetary system backed by gold and silver, is a must read. Whether his historic (IMO and many others) "Pieces of Eight" or other works like "What is a Dollar?" being a worthwhile start for those new to the man, his is a must read when it comes to the nature of money in American Constitutional law. Pieces of Eight 2 vol. is sadly out of print and sellers are getting upwards of $1k for them but I'm hearing Dr. Viera is looking at a limited reprint but we'll see. Dr. Viera to my knowledge has argued 4 cases before SCOTUS and won 3 of them so his knowledge of law and history are very much worthy of being taken into consideration especially by those who favor the limited gov't school of politics and political structure along with fiscal responsibility and sound economic law.

I heard Dr. Viera speak back in the early 80's on the nature of money and it's history and it was truly fascinating to say the very least. On another side, it is correct that a "Con-Con" can not be limited in scope. In an ironic twist, the Constitution itself is proof of that. The events leading to the actual constitution were only authorized to seek modifications to the original Articles of Confederation and instead the so-called "Constitutional Convention" literally abolished the old Articles and replaced them with a constitution that granted a central federal gov't with vastly larger powers never envisioned much less possible under the authority of the Article of Confederation. A "Con-Con" would most likely produce a document granting even greater powers to the central federal gov't and if you think that is a stretch just imagine all that goes on now by both political sides even under shady claims of authority. It might be hard to consider how much worse a new Constitution could be given what is done now in it's name but it could be worse and most likely it would be.

 

[wkmac]

Maybe the Tea Party and other so-called rightwing limited gov't types, including minarchist libertarians, should consider Voluntaryism as a means away from unnecessary big gov't and it's fellow travelers. Then again same could be said for the Coffee Party and so-called leftwing big gov't types. I'm betting neither is interested because they have to give up power and the biggee, DOMINION!

I also agree with the author above and the Voluntaryist website is a great thought provoking resource.

 

[tourists24]

Maybe the Tea Party and other so-called rightwing limited gov't types, including minarchist libertarians, should consider Voluntaryism as a means away from unnecessary big gov't and it's fellow travelers. Then again same could be said for the Coffee Party and so-called leftwing big gov't types. I'm betting neither is interested because they have to give up power and the biggee, DOMINION!

I also agree with the author above and the Voluntaryist website is a great thought provoking resource.

WK,,, I like the voluntaryist site you linked to.... still going through a lot of it though... I like the one titled "Declaration of renunciation and severance of US citizenship" by Jeff Knaebel.... guys got stones

 

[wkmac]

WK,,, I like the voluntaryist site you linked to.... still going through a lot of it though... I like the one titled "Declaration of renunciation and severance of US citizenship" by Jeff Knaebel.... guys got stones

Tourist,

I like the site as well. Found it several years ago and many, many, many of the articles are both thought provoking and challenging to long held ideals. If you accept as a first principle self ownership then voluntaryism or what some call free market mutualism seems a system if you will with a lot to offer if we would give it some consideration.

Voluntaryism allows individuals to make their own choices, some may choose a variation of a capitalist economic model, others may choose a more Marxian social approach, others may choose other means but there is no compelling force to enter, stay or leave any approach or any single soceital model.

What works best will depend on the persons and group but I'm betting the best approach over a broad base of people will be some completely hybrid model (using today's most known socio/economic models) so when one talks of voluntaryism, it is a true free market of ideas where those ideas don't come to the top by force and conquest but come to the top because they truly work as one now has actual proof. You'll choose a socio/economic society like you choose any other product in the marketplace except the idea of this marketplace is truly free and open to anyone and anything. No copyright or intellectual property rights here if you will.

If you take the "A" personality heirarchy of society (not all "A's" are morally bad either) out of the way or their use of community force and illusion of elitist standing, I think most groups of people who work together will have very similar structure and broader cooperation, voluntary of course, would be fairly widespread. Economic trade and cooperation could also be widespread as well. Obviously, all this for now is theory and to many if not most, pie in the sky and right now it is.

But once we begin to step out of the box and look around, good ideas are everywhere but we're just not allowed by the heirarchy to consider them because it would threaten their position and power. It all comes back to the basic question, "Who owns you?" and then the next question is "Do you own others?" If the answer to the first question is "no one" and the next answer is "no I don't" then this opens up a huge pandora's box, one that some people don't want you to open.