Oldies
Harrolds.Blogspot.com
From: ConservativeActionAlerts (USJF) Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009
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if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, which repealed the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Free Speech?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if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which repealed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Keep and Bear Arms?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! 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? 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!
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! 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? 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!
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!
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! To donate by check, make payable to:
United States Justice Foundation, 932 D Street Suite 1, Ramona, CA 92065
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!
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! To donate by check, make payable to:
United States Justice Foundation, 932 D Street Suite 1, Ramona, CA 92065
Posts
Legislation Pending in Congress
Mr. Harrold should check out things a bit more carefully. First of all this email that has been circulating has links for "donations" to it. It is a scam. The site is a phishing site. If you go to the web site of the USJF you'll not find one thing about an Article V Convention, "constitutional convention" or any discussion of the subject. If you go to their donation page, you'll find its URL. Compare that URL with the URL in this and you'll find they are different.
ReplyDeleteIn short, this email is a scam intended to steal from those who are so radical they just react by emotion.
Further the information in this email is out of date and inaccurate. To begin with all 50 states have submitted 750 applications for an Article V Convention, so if Obama wanted to do what his alleged, all he'd have to do is have Congress call, not wait for more applications. Moreover, Congress and a convention have the same identical power; so why bother with a convention when Congress can do the very same thing itself?
You can read the applications at www.foavc.org. And finally, if there is any further doubt about this read FAQ 9.1 at the site. Obama is on public record as opposing the calling of an Article V Convention and thus favors vetoing or scraping the Constitution. He may be planning what is charged but it not going to be by a convention.
The USJF is not a phishing site nor a scam. They do redirect to a different URL for tracking & donations support. Article V is discussed on one of their pages; however, regardless of the concerns about identical power and o'who?'s intentions, he has established a track record of trying to accomplish a lot of 'back door' regulation changes and influence such as the recent letter to Humana 'suggesting' that they do no notify their clients about the potential Medicaire cuts in particular "Medicare Advantage." This type of 'behind the scenes' manuevering is not new to politics but o'who? has certainly raised it to a new level.
ReplyDeleteFor more background on Gary Kreep and the USJF visit the URL: http://usjf.net/?page_id=1191
ReplyDelete