Why We Don’t Want an Article V Amendment Convention
By Doug Ardt
The Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2016 (HCR 2016) and Senate Concurrent Resolution 1016 (SCR 1016) have been introduced.
They apply to Congress to call a constitutional convention to propose a constitutional amendment “to set a limit on the number of terms a person may be elected as a Member of the [U.S. House and Senate].” Additionally, Senate Concurrent Resolution 1014 (SCR 1014) applies to Congress for a convention to propose “an inflation-fighting federal fiscal responsibility amendment.”
We all know term limits are already in the Constitution, and if Congress is suddenly required to ‘balance the budget’ it will simply raise taxes (income) rather than cut expenses (welfare). The FedGov budget is tariffs (we mistakenly sent manufacturing overseas so we could pay tariffs) and income from the state legislatures (see U.S. Constitution).
Additionally, Senate Resolution 1001 (SR 1001) has been introduced. It seeks to regulate the conduct of delegates to prevent a runaway convention. Although useless, this bill would create a false sense of security that a convention will not get out of control. Even if the States still have to ratify it, how easily it will be for outside, foreign interference, NGOs, special interest lobbyists, and ‘Bad Actors’ to influence, disrupt and coerce legislatures for foreign agendas.
In recent years, the Convention of States (COS) has been the main organization lobbying for an Article V, or Constitutional Convention (Con-Con). With slick and well-connected PR, and a heavy purse to wine and dine legislators and buying publicity, COS is a master of exploiting the genuine concerns of well-meaning patriots. They peddle a Con-Con as the answer to out-of-control government without telling them of the risks and the REST OF THE STORY.
Article V Research Project Manager Christian Gomez recently interviewed Robert Brown, a constitutional scholar about the Tucker Carlson interview of COS’ Mark Meckler. Brown expressed frustration that Tucker Carlson failed to fully research Meckler. Many of Meckler’s statements and claims are misleading. Please watch this quick interview debunking COS patently false claims:
VIEW IT HERE
When they learn the complete facts surrounding a COS-invented Con-Con, legislators refuse to even take a floor vote on the resolutions to apply for an Article V Convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. There simply is not enough support because they refuse to hang their political career on unintended consequences of this dangerous ploy.
Pennsylvania is one of the many states the Convention of States (COS) organization targeted to pass its Con-Con application. COS even trotted out hometown boy Rick Santorum to create support, hoping his local pedigree would help. It didn’t. Other states, Ohio, South Dakota, Iowa, Montana and Utah, are defeating and/or rescinding such bills and prior convention calls.
This interview is really good! Shawn Meehan, founder of Guard the Constitution, is interviewed about Glenn Beck’s reversal of his prior endorsement of COS; he thoroughly debunks COS talking points by its co-founder Mark Meckler and COS senior advisor Rick Santorum.
VIEW IT HERE
Many of us believe today’s high degree
of Constitutional ignorance makes this the most dangerous time to open the Constitution for changes. This is the same belief that former longtime Con-Con supporter and national radio figure Glenn Beck recently expressed when he withdrew his support–the process can no longer be trusted.
The problem isn’t the Constitution; it’s our refusal to obey it. The Constitution already has the remedy to our problems, especially with Article VI (have you read it? It’s better than using Article V). And did you know that an Article V convention has plenipotentiary power (just like an ambassador to a foreign country) which gives it complete, authoritative power over the Federal Government, the States, the People and their ‘Supreme Law of the Land’ the U.S. Constitution itself?
COS cannot honestly answer this question: “If Congress refuses to obey our present U.S. Constitution, why do we think they will obey it after it is amended?” Yet COS wants you to trust an amendment process with no proven guarantees it will accomplish change, but huge pitfalls if it fails.
We need to oppose any Article V call for amending the Constitution; supporting COS places Arizonans at risk of losing our God-given rights, not containing a rogue Congress. Play it safe and nullify unconstitutional actions committed by both Arizona and Congress by using the 10th Amendment instead: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Even the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Marbury vs. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Chief Justice Marshall concluded, “the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” This doctrine is universal and has never changed.
One can read Joe Wolvertan II J.D. who has an in-depth explanation of how COS disguises its agenda HERE:
We do not need to amend the Constitution; we need to enforce it. Then 80% of the problems we are struggling with will cease to exist.
★ ★ ★ ★