Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Acall for a Constitutional Convention
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AmandaMoore" data-source="post: 706876" data-attributes="member: 28883"><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Constitutional Scholars warn against CON CON</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">* Once a Con Con is called it cannot be limited in scope. Dr. Edwin Vieira, Chief Warren Burger and others explain article V.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">* 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.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">* Article V sets up a 3 step process step 1. 2/3s of the legislatures apply to congress to call a convention.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">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."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">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.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">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]</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">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).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">The following letter, from Chief Justice Burger. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Supreme Court of the United States </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">"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."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">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. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">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. <a href="http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/burger.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/burger.htm</a></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">(3) Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Arthur Joseph Goldberg served as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1962 to 1965.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">See Articles of Freedom <a href="http://www.givemeliberty.org/" target="_blank">http://www.givemeliberty.org/</a> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">(4) original <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html" target="_blank">http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html</a> Continental Congress 2009 <a href="http://www.cc2009.us/" target="_blank">http://www.cc2009.us/</a></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AmandaMoore, post: 706876, member: 28883"] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Constitutional Scholars warn against CON CON[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]* Once a Con Con is called it cannot be limited in scope. Dr. Edwin Vieira, Chief Warren Burger and others explain article V.[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]* 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.[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]* Article V sets up a 3 step process step 1. 2/3s of the legislatures apply to congress to call a convention.[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]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."[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]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.[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]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][/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]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).[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]The following letter, from Chief Justice Burger. [/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Supreme Court of the United States [/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]"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."[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]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. [/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]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. [url]http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/burger.htm[/url][/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman](3) Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Arthur Joseph Goldberg served as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1962 to 1965.[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]See Articles of Freedom [url]http://www.givemeliberty.org/[/url] [/FONT][/SIZE] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3](4) original [url]http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html[/url] Continental Congress 2009 [url]http://www.cc2009.us/[/url][/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Acall for a Constitutional Convention
Top