|
Written by Larry Greenley
|
|
Wednesday, 18 November 2009 13:00 |
In this era of trillion dollar legislative bills for an economic stimulus that's not working, a government takeover of health care, and cap-and-trade energy taxes to supposedly reduce global warming, millions of Americans are "awakening" to the need to limit the federal government by insisting that Congress adhere to the Constitution. Some of these newly awakened Americans have concluded that amending the Constitution would help get our nation back on track, while forgetting that our biggest problem is that our elected officials already pay little attention to the Constitution's limitations as it is. Why would they pay attention to some new amendments? Instead of working on amending the Constitution, we must first organize a massive educational campaign about the constitutional solutions to our nation's problems in order to create sufficient grassroots understanding to bring about the election of a majority of constitutionalists to Congress.
Meanwhile, some of these newly awakened constitutionalists observe that although Congress will not propose certain amendments that would appear to be useful additions to the Constitution, Article V provides a second way that amendments can be proposed, a constitutional convention (con-con). However, these same newly awakened Americans all too easily overlook the risks involved in a con-con. Click here to view a 36-minute video, "Beware of Article V," that exposes the unacceptable risks that would be involved in convening a constitutional convention at this time in our nation's history.
Furthermore, most Americans are not aware of the successful 25-year campaign by the John Birch Society and other constitutionalist organizations to preserve the Constitution by preventing the calling of a con-con. Click here to read "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention," which will bring you up to date on this campaign. This article also includes two color-coded maps: (1) showing the high water mark of the movement to call a con-con based on the desire for a balanced budget amendment; and (2) showing the eleven states (also joined by a twelfth state, Wyoming in 2009) where the state legislature has voted to rescind all previous calls for a con-con.
On November 10, 2009, Professor Kevin Gutzman promoted the idea of a constitutional convention during his appearance on the Glenn Beck TV Show. Here's the video:
Even though Glenn Beck has posted an excellent position statement on his website in opposition to calling a constitutional convention, several guests on his FoxNews show in 2009 have also promoted the con-con concept. Click here to read "Another Endorsement of a Constitutional Convention on Glenn Beck." This article includes a link to video of Gutzman's appearance as well as links to the "Beware of Article V" video and "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention" article referred to above.
In a nutshell, the majority of constitutional scholars agree that an Article V constitutional convention cannot be restricted as to what amendments it would consider and ultimately propose, which means that the delegates to such a convention would be free to consider a whole range of changes to our Constitution as well as even considering a whole new constitution. Given the present state of understanding of the Constitution among the American electorate, it is inadvisable to convene a body of delegates with such broad powers to revise our Constitution. After this constitutional convention would "propose amendments," the amendment(s) would then be submitted to the states (either legislatures or special state conventions according to the Constitution, but possibly some other means proposed by the constitutional convention itself following the precedent of our original Constitutional Convention in specifying the means for ratification of the Constitution) for ratification. Although 3/4s of the states would have to ratify an amendment for it to become part of the Constitution, there is still the all-too-real risk that a harmful amendment or series of amendments could be ratified due to the extraordinary influence exerted on American voters and their representatives by powerful elites in our news media, government, educational institutions, and foundations.
Starting in late 2008 and continuing on through 2009 there have been several individuals and organizations that have decided to make the calling of a constitutional convention a top priority, and have begun contacting state legislators throughout the nation to support their project.
Preserving the Constitution from the threat represented by calling a con-con will require the hard work of constitutionalists throughout the United States. Personal contact through office visits and phone calls are a must ( Click here for contact information for your state legislators.). Your tools include "Beware of Article V" ( free online and as a DVD), "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention" ( free online and as a reprint), and "Another Endorsement of a Constitutional Convention on Glenn Beck" ( free online).
To supplement the necessary personal contacts mentioned above, click here to send a prewritten, editable email message in opposition to a con-con to your state legislators. While email messages cannot equal the impact and effectiveness of personal contacts, they can play a role in an overall campaign. Please be sure to personalize your emails for maximum impact.
A constitutional convention has been prevented from being called over the past 25 years through the hard work of members of the John Birch Society and like-minded groups and individuals in personally contacting their state legislators of both parties and making them aware of the risks involved in calling a con-con. This is truly a nonpartisan issue. Whenever the time has been taken to present the risks associated with a constitutional convention to state legislators, the majority of both parties have voted against calling for a con-con. Not only have no additional state legislatures called for a con-con for the past 25 years, legislators in 12 states have become so thoroughly convinced of the dangers of a constitutional convention that they have voted to rescind (repeal) all previous con-con calls in their states.
Whenever we have enough understanding of constitutional principles among the electorate to make it relatively safe to call a constitutional convention, we'll also have the political environment for electing a majority of constitutionalists to Congress where any necessary amendments could be proposed and submitted to the states for ratification without the risks inherent in a constitutional convention. |
|
|
Written by Larry Greenley
|
|
Thursday, 12 November 2009 15:24 |
|
 In light of the strenuous and successful campaign by the John Birch Society and other constitutionalist organizations over the past 25 years or so to preserve the Constitution by preventing the calling of a constitutional convention (con-con) as provided for in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, it was very disappointing to see a well-known constitutional scholar, Professor Kevin Gutzman, promote the concept on the Glenn Beck TV Show on Tuesday, November 10 (see embedded video below). Judge Andrew Napolitano was the substitute host due to Beck's appendicitis operation. As documented in my article, "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention," posted on TheNewAmerican.com on June 23, both Professor Randy Barnett and Judge Napolitano had endorsed the idea of a constitutional convention on the Beck show earlier this year.
Although the idea of calling a constitutional convention has been promoted on Glenn Beck's TV Show several times this year, it must be pointed out that Beck posted a "Note from Glenn" on his website (below an article by Judge Napolitano dated May 15, 2009) in which he strongly opposes a con-con. Here's Beck's excellent position statement disavowing the whole concept of calling a constitutional convention:
Let’s be clear that no one is calling for a Constitutional Convention. The Judge has outlined what would need to be done, legally, in order for the 10th Amendment to have some real teeth put back into it. No one really wants a Constitutional Convention. Nobody on the left or the right really pushes for one for two reasons. First, no matter how limited the scope of the proposed constitutional convention if one actually takes place it’ll be almost impossible to restrict the changes that could be made to the Constitution. Remember that when the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia for their constitutional convention their orders were to do nothing more than “amend the Articles of Confederation.” By day three they had unofficially agreed to abolish the Articles and create a new form of government. If a constitutional convention were held today there would be no limits on what they could do and it’s very possible we end up with the Constitution shredded and in tatters. I don’t want to take that risk.
Second, I don’t trust our current crop of politicians to do the right thing. I don’t see a modern-day George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or James Madison. All I see are selfish politicians willing to do anything to get re-elected. I don’t want to put the future of my children and grandchildren in their fat money-stained fingers.
So let’s hold off on the constitutional convention but move forward with the gun legislation in Montana, Utah, Texas and other states in an effort to have the Supreme Court re-consider the 10th Amendment. Good people doing great things is all it takes to return America to what our Founding Fathers intended Her to be—a bastion of freedom and liberty!
-glenn
To give you some more context for why I say it was disappointing to hear Professor Gutzman recommend a con-con, here's an excerpt from "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention":
Although attempting to get the federal government back under control by amending the Constitution is very appealing to many conservatives and constitutionalists, it does not address the primary problem. The primary problem is that the three branches of the federal government do not adhere to the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders. Surprisingly, this indifference to the Constitution began with some of the decisions of Chief Justice John Marshall nearly 200 years ago. Over the years this indifference has grown slowly, but with the advent of the Obama presidential administration combined with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, we’re now witnessing almost daily naked displays of raw, unconstitutional usurpations of power by the federal government with regard to states, businesses, and individuals.
In this environment, simply amending the Constitution would not be sufficient to get the government back under control. However, there are numerous individuals and groups that still advocate constitutional amendments as the solution....
In a nutshell, the argument against calling for a constitutional convention is that once convened, such a convention would be free to consider and propose whatever amendments to the Constitution that it deemed beneficial. Which is to say that such a convention could become a “runaway convention” in much the same way that the Constitutional Convention that produced our current U.S. Constitution was a runaway convention that disregarded the guidelines under which it was convened. While most Americans are very thankful for the Constitution produced by our original Constitutional Convention in 1787, most Americans and certainly most state legislators, when fully informed of the downsides involved, oppose the convening of a new constitutional convention in our day. (For a video presentation of the arguments against a con-con, see the 36-minute “Beware of Article V” video on YouTube.com or BirchTube on JBS.org.)
Warren Burger, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, argued along the same lines when he vigorously opposed convening a constitutional convention in a letter he wrote to Phyllis Schlafley of Eagle Forum on June 22, 1988:
I have also repeatedly given my opinion that 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."
Here's the video of Professor Gutzman promoting a constitutional convention on the Glenn Beck TV Show on November 10:
After watching the video above of Professor Gutzman's recommendation for calling a constitutional convention, be sure to watch "Beware Article V," an excellent video produced by the John Birch Society in 1999 and embedded below that exposes the downsides of calling a constitutional convention.
If you agree that calling a constitutional convention would be too risky in the present political environment, then you should be contacting your state legislators in strong opposition to a con-con to be sure that they don't succumb to any new movement to have state legislatures petition Congress to call a constitutional convention. To understand the complicated situation of just how many states would be required to trigger a con-con, read "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention."
Your best educational tools for convincing your state legislators to oppose a con-con are the "Beware Article V" video above (also available on DVD) and a reprint of "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention." |
|
Written by Bob Adelmann
|
|
Monday, 09 November 2009 13:44 |
|
 U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told an audience in Arizona that some of his liberal colleagues were inventing or granting new rights that were never intended by the Founders.
When Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer squared off in a conversation about “The Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation” at the Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona on Monday, October 26, few in the audience were prepared for the forceful and persuasive arguments for “originalness” presented by Justice Scalia. The opposite view, that new rights are necessary to allow the Constitution to “evolve” along with society, was taken by Justice Stephen Breyer.
Pete Williams of NBC News and the moderator opened the conversation by asking Justice Scalia “Why don’t you just call ‘em as you see ‘em?”
Scalia responded by indicating that making decisions without a frame of reference to what the Founders intended would lead to “the end of democracy”. Once we abandon their intentions and substitute our own, Scalia said, “we are at sea.” Some on the court, Scalia continued, insert their own feelings and beliefs and values into the decision-making process, in order to create a “happier” society.
When Breyer interjected that Sandra Day O’Connor’s decision in a recent affirmative action case reflected the concerns that businesses, the military, labor unions and universities had in being unable to make good decisions under the current law, Scalia responded, “We’re not here to make a happier society. We’re here to determine what the people were thinking when the 14th Amendment was ratified.”
“The fight is about the Supreme Court inventing new rights nobody ever thought existed,” said Scalia. “Right to abortion? Come on! Nobody thought it violated anything in the Constitution for 200 years. It was criminal.” The same was true of homosexual sodomy, he added. (The Court has struck down state laws that banned both abortion and sodomy.)
For example, in Roe v Wade, a “right to privacy” was invented by the Court. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Potter Stewart noted that "no such general right of privacy" can be found in the express language of "the Bill of Rights" or "any other part of the Constitution."
Scalia went on to point out that if “the Constitution will mean whatever the [majority] of the American people want it to mean, [then] that is not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a Constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.”
“Originalism”, which is Scalia’s approach, results in finding many of the answers the Court seeks, while Breyer’s approach consists of playing it by ear, and looking up at the ceiling for those answers. This, Scalia said, “yields no answers”.
The trouble with an evolving Constitution, according to Scalia, is that society would be adhering, not to the ideals of the Founders, but instead to the ideals of a revolving group of nine people sitting on the Supreme Court bench.
Scalia pointed out that if the 14th Amendment had a footnote indicating that the meaning of the phrase “equal protection of the laws” would be whatever the Supreme Court decided at the time, the American people would never have voted for it.
Breyer responded that such an approach would make the Constitution too confining and restrictive, too rigid and inflexible, that people won’t be “able to live under it.”
In a strongly worded answer to the excessive need to be “flexible”, Scalia said, “[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says some things and doesn't say other things.”
A Scalia definition of “living constitution” cited in encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com states, “[Proponents of the ‘living constitution’ approach want matters to be decided] not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court . . . They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable.”
The same online encyclopedia quotes Scalia as saying: ''If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again.... You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility." meaning these things should be accomplished through legislation.
When challenged by Scalia to tell the audience how he comes to a decision, Breyer said “I have objective ways to determine my position. And I write them down, and people can see them, and read them, and disagree with them, and that’s useful in a democracy.”
By then, of course, it’s too late.
Bob Adelmann holds a Master's degree from Cornell University with a major in
economics and finance. He is an entrepreneur and teaches marketing
strategies to small business owners around the country. He is a life member
of the John Birch Society. Email: BobAdelmann@msn.com Website:
www.small-business-marketing-strategies-that-work.com |
|
Written by Jim Capo
|
|
Thursday, 15 October 2009 00:00 |
|
 That is the most likely reason the security camera tapes recently released by the FBI under a Freedom of Information Act request appear to be doctored.
The official line on the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19th, 1995 is that a couple a guys in a Ryder Rental truck, filled with a backyard brew of fertilzer and fuel oil (ANFO bomb), were able to bring down a major portion of a steel reinforced concrete structure. While that story was being fabricated for mass consumption, investigative reporter Willaim F. Jasper of The New American magazine — flagship publication of The John Birch Society — was digging up the real truth. (Click on cover story photo.)
Jasper called on the expertise of Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, ret). Partin had spent a career in the military developing ordnance that would get the biggest bang for the buck when it came to destroying things like buildings. Partin's analysis of the blast site and destruction of the Murrah building came down to this:
An ANFO bomb could not have destroyed the structural columns in the Murah building. And, even if military grade explosives were used, a blast in the street could not destroy interior columns while leaving closer more exterior columns intact.
The conclusion Partin offered was that the Murrah building had most likely been brought down with the use of demolition charges.
Too shocking to believe? Well, back when The John Birch Society was doing the hard work of fighting for freedom against the tide of cover-ups and lies being put out by the federal government on the OKC bombing, there was not a readily available case study to check Brig. General Partin's analysis against. However, that changed last year with the truck bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan in September of 2008.
Check the footage of the bomb site in Islamabad and note the following:
- The bomb crater left in the street is at least as large if not larger than anything you can find for OKC.
- The explosives used were far more powerful than fertilizer and fuel oil.
- And the clincher: The massive explosion in Islamabad, as Partin predicted, did not even have enough force to blow out a single thin concrete column holding up the ornamental roof along the sidewalk of the Marriott Hotel.
Here is where an honest reader should give pause and start to question the government line on OKC. For others not willing to face up the the truth they have two options: cover their ears or go through a mental gyration that explains how the laws of physics vary between Oklahoma City and Islamabad.
Maybe they just don't build federal buildings in the U.S. as strong as sidewalk awnings in Pakistan?
|
|
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 18:53 |
Then candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at an event hosted by ACORN on July 2, 2007.
We reported in this space today on ACORN's receipt of firefighting funds. That story, however, had changed radically since it broke, and since we missed it, that just goes to show how easy it can be to miss things in today's fast-paced news cycle. In any case, it is worth reading an update on the story from our partner site, TheNewAmerican.com:
More than one member of Congress wants to know how ACORN, the leftist scam that former board members call a criminal conspiracy, nearly collected close to $1 million in federal funding for fire prevention and safety.
The Washington Times reported that ACORN was slated to receive 80 percent of the Homeland Security grants intended for fire prevention and safety programs in Louisiana. The paper initially reported that ACORN had received the money, but the Obama administration then announced that the grant was killed before the money went out.
Still, Rep. Dale Issa (R-Calif.) ranking minority member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Maine’s Susan Collins, ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, wonder why ACORN was slated to receive the grant to begin with. “We are perplexed as to how this organization would even be considered for a first-responder grant,” they wrote in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
In July, Issa’s committee staff released a report alleging that ACORN is a essentially a criminal conspiracy trespassing the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, which has traditionally been used to prosecute the Mob.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) wasn’t happy about the grant either. On September 22, he wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. “I request that you rescind this grant based on a history of abuse of federal dollars by ACORN and their clear lack of expertise in this area,” Vitter wrote. A week before Vitter wrote to Napolitano, two other legislators also inquired about the money. Reps. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.) and Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) members of the House Committee on Homeland Security, wrote to Napolitano with a request to rescind the money.
The cabinet agency froze the money, the Times reports, after Congress passed a spending bill on September 30.
Continue Reading at TheNewAmerican.com
|
|
|
