# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Oklahoma Rescinds All Previous Constitutional Convention Calls (Con-Con)

## FrankRep

Oklahoma Rescinds All Previous Constitutional Convention Calls


Larry Greenley | The New American 
14 May 2009


Oklahoma continues to lead the nation in Constitution-oriented legislation at the state level. The Tenth Amendment resolution introduced in the Oklahoma legislature last year by Rep. Charles Key has led to at least 30 states introducing similar Tenth Amendment resolutions so far this year. These amendments call for the restoration of the balance of power between state and federal governments in accordance with the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. At least 12 states, including Oklahoma, have already passed a Tenth Amendment resolution in one or both houses.

Now Oklahoma has become the first state this year to rescind all of its previous applications to Congress to call a constitutional convention (con con). On May 12, Governor Brad Henry signed SJR 11, A Joint Resolution rescinding applications by the Legislature to the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention. This followed passage of SJR 11 by the Senate 45-0 on March 4; passage of an amended version by the House 90-6 on April 22; and finally, Senate passage of the House version by 41-2 on May 5.

Back in the mid 1970s a con-con movement sprang up to call a modern-day constitutional convention for the stated purpose of drafting a balanced-budget amendment (BBA) to the Constitution, and by 1983 it had led to 32 state legislatures asking Congress to call a convention as provided by Article V of the Constitution. However, as awareness spread that a constitutional convention cannot be limited to drafting a specific amendment  and in fact could draft any number of amendments including an entirely new constitution  the con-con movement sputtered and stalled.

Here's a video, "Beware of Article V," which shows just how risky a constitutional convention would be for our Constitution:

YouTube - Beware Article V (part 1 of 4)

The John Birch Society (JBS) was instrumental in slowing and then reversing the momentum behind the drive for a balanced-budget con con. With 32 states out of the necessary 34 (two-thirds) already on record with con-con calls, our nation was only two more states away from a very risky con-con. However, since JBS members and allies got involved in this fight in the 1980s, not one more state has approved a balanced budget amendment con-con. What's more, these grassroots constitutionalists worked closely with their state legislators in many states which has led to 11 states rescinding (withdrawing) their BBA con-con calls as well as all of their other con-con calls for other purposes. So, now instead of 32 states on record with BBA constitutional convention calls, there are now only 21 states with "live" (unrescinded) BBA calls.

Nonetheless, a new constitutional convention threat has arisen this year. Hundreds of thousands of newly awakened Americans are being mobilized by the Tea Party Movement and the Glenn Beck 9-12 Project to form a grassroots movement in favor of some very good causes, such as lower taxes, less spending, and a return to a more limited federal government. In recent weeks the national leaders of both movements have been heavily promoting Professor Randy Barnett and his project of proposing 10 amendments to the Constitution by applying pressure on all 50 state legislatures to call for a con-con. Both Tea Party leader Michael Patrick Leahy and 9-12 Project leader Glenn Beck have featured Prof. Barnett and his project on their TV shows. If the leadership of these new movements persist in promoting this constitutional convention strategy, and if the local organizers and members adopt the con-con project, then were in for one of the biggest threats to our Constitution that weve ever had.

Thats why Oklahomas rescission of all of its previous constitutional convention calls this year, and by such lop-sided votes, provides such a hopeful precedent for the continued rejection of any new constitutional convention proposals by all state legislatures.


*SOURCE:*
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/1120

----------


## Alawn

I am so sick of this STUPID fear of an article V convention for an amendment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  It would be a good thing.  It will not rewrite the whole constitution.  It has NO more of a danger than congress suggesting an amendment to completely rewrite the constitution.  These people have to stop being so stupid.  

A convention is the same as if congress suggested an amendment.  Either 2/3 of congress suggests an amendment or 2/3 of the states suggest an amendment in a convention.  Then either way 3/4 of the states have to ratify it.  It makes no difference which way the amendment is proposed.  The only difference is who writes it and who you trust more.  I and everyone should trust your state representatives a lot more than congress.  The only way any amendment to reduce the power of the federal government will ever happen is through a convention.  These fears are completely baseless and are HURTING us.

A convention is NOT the same thing as when the constitution was written.  It is just to propose an amendment.  The danger is actually much HIGHER that congress will propose an amendment that will rewrite the constitution substantially.  And either way it still has to go through the ratification process.  Some people that think they are helping us are really screwing us.

Every single day that congress is in session is a basically a constitutional convention.  But they almost never agree an something enough to lead to an amendment.  

What is wrong with these morons.  Lets just say for some crazy reason a convention suggests a stupid amendment that screws us it makes no difference.  It still will have to be ratified just like when congress suggests an amendment.  And what on earth makes you think the people at the convention are more likely to propose bad amendments than congress?  

The JBS does a lot of good things.  But this is not a good one.  I wish they would stop.  We need a convention if we ever want any amendment that will be beneficial.

----------


## FrankRep

Remember the Articles of Confederation? What happened to them?

----------


## Kotin

> Remember the Articles of the Confederation? What happened to them?


yes.. I believe they were amending those too...

----------


## Alawn

> Remember the Articles of the Confederation? What happened to them?


And your point is?

Don't you people understand?  Congress could do the same thing.  In fact they are much more likely to do that.  

Scenario 1: 2/3 of the states in a convention decide to propose changing everything in the constitution.  It then has to get ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Scenario 2: 2/3 of congress decides to propose changing everything in the constitution.  It then has to get ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Why are you afraid of 1 but not 2?  It is the exact same thing.  Any time congress wants it can vote on an out of control amendment/scrapping of all of our rights.  Every single day is a constitutional convention for congress.  Why aren't you irrationally scared of them?  Are the states somehow evil and untrustworthy but the federal government is wonderful and has our best interests at heart?

If you are not afraid of 2 happening you should not be afraid of 1 happening.

We could conceivably have a 2/3 vote today saying that all states are dissolved and the US is one big unitary government with all laws uniformly being passed by congress.  There is NOTHING preventing this.  It would be completely legal and could happen any day.  If 3/4 of the states ratified it then that becomes the new constitution.  You don't believe that would ever happen?  What if a few more dems win the next election giving them 2/3 vote and they propose an amendment making it illegal to own any type of gun if you are not part of the police or military?  

I want an explanation why 1 is more likely than 2 and nobody is ever able to give one to me.  This all comes down to who you trust more in proposing the amendment.  Apparently everyone here trusts congress but doesn't trust the states.  What on earth would ever lead you to this conclusion?

----------


## Pericles

+1 Its like those folks are thinking Convention = No more Constitution

If the current Constitution had not been ratified AFTER it had been submitted to the states by the convestion, we would still have the Articles of Confederation. Does that answer the question?

----------


## fgd

I think that people shouting down a con-con don't realize what shills they've been hijacked by.

Con-con called by the states = more state power, less federal power.

Constitutional amendment proposed by Congress = more federal power, less state power.

Former much better than latter.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Good for Oklahoma.

----------


## Zippyjuan

A con-con does not have the authority to rewrite the Constitution. All a con-con can do is propose amendments.  Those proposals would then have to be aproved by 3/4ths of the states to take effect.

----------


## FrankRep

Get John F. McManus on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano!


Go to the following link and vote to have John McManus, President of JBS, on the Freedom Watch show with Judge Napolitano.
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/pa...john-f-mcmanus

Starting from scratch only a day or so ago, John McManus has moved up to 14th ranked Freedom Watch Guest Suggestion. Mr. McManus now has 353 votes from 134 supporters. You get to cast up to three votes; be sure to use all three!

*An appearance on Freedom Watch would give Mr. McManus an opportunity to present the downsides of a constitutional convention (Con-Con) to Judge Napolitano, who has been promoting a Con-Con in several recent appearances on the Glenn Beck TV Show.*

The danger of calling a constitutional convention is that once convened, the participants would be free to consider whatever changes in the Constitution that they could agree on. This could lead to radical changes for the worse in the Constitution. For more info view "Beware of Article V" at YouTube - Beware Article V (part 1 of 4)

----------


## Alawn

> The danger of calling a constitutional convention is that once convened, the participants would be free to consider whatever changes in the Constitution that they could agree on. This could lead to radical changes for the worse in the Constitution. For more info view "Beware of Article V"


The same argument is repeated over and over but nobody can give me any rational answer to my question.




> Scenario 1: 2/3 of the states in a convention decide to propose changing everything in the constitution.  It then has to get ratified by 3/4 of the states.
> 
> Scenario 2: 2/3 of congress decides to propose changing everything in the constitution.  It then has to get ratified by 3/4 of the states.
> 
> Why are you afraid of 1 but not 2?  It is the exact same thing.  Any time congress wants it can vote on an out of control amendment/scrapping of all of our rights.  Every single day is a constitutional convention for congress.  Why aren't you irrationally scared of them?  Are the states somehow evil and untrustworthy but the federal government is wonderful and has our best interests at heart?
> 
> If you are not afraid of 2 happening you should not be afraid of 1 happening.
> 
> We could conceivably have a 2/3 vote today saying that all states are dissolved and the US is one big unitary government with all laws uniformly being passed by congress.  There is NOTHING preventing this.  It would be completely legal and could happen any day.  If 3/4 of the states ratified it then that becomes the new constitution.  You don't believe that would ever happen?  What if a few more dems win the next election giving them 2/3 vote and they propose an amendment making it illegal to own any type of gun if you are not part of the police or military?  
> ...

----------


## nobody's_hero

www.foavc.org

----------


## LibertyEagle

Alawn:

There is no way to limit what goes on in a Constitutional Convention.  Once it is convened, they can do just about anything they want to do.  Yes, after they come up with whatever they do, it will have to be ratified by the states.  However, I personally am concerned if the states, or anyone, would 1. read the dang thing.  2.  Understand what they read and the ramifications of the legalese well enough to make a wise decision about what they're signing.  

Remember that the way we got the Constitution was a convention of the same type that was convened to amend the Articles of Confederation.  In reality, they threw out the whole thing, wrote the Constitution, and because they didn't like the ratification rules currently in existence, decided to use the new ones they had just written for ratification of their new document.  We were lucky the first time.  Would we be again?  Willing to chance it?

Watch the multi-part video that Frank linked.  It explains it all.

----------


## LibertyEagle

bump

----------


## 10thAmendment

> I am so sick of this STUPID fear of an article V convention for an amendment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  It would be a good thing.  It will not rewrite the whole constitution.  It has NO more of a danger than congress suggesting an amendment to completely rewrite the constitution.  These people have to stop being so stupid.  
> 
> A convention is the same as if congress suggested an amendment.  Either 2/3 of congress suggests an amendment or 2/3 of the states suggest an amendment in a convention.  Then either way 3/4 of the states have to ratify it.  It makes no difference which way the amendment is proposed.  The only difference is who writes it and who you trust more.  I and everyone should trust your state representatives a lot more than congress.  The only way any amendment to reduce the power of the federal government will ever happen is through a convention.  These fears are completely baseless and are HURTING us.
> 
> A convention is NOT the same thing as when the constitution was written.  It is just to propose an amendment.  The danger is actually much HIGHER that congress will propose an amendment that will rewrite the constitution substantially.  And either way it still has to go through the ratification process.  Some people that think they are helping us are really screwing us.
> 
> Every single day that congress is in session is a basically a constitutional convention.  But they almost never agree an something enough to lead to an amendment.  
> 
> What is wrong with these morons.  Lets just say for some crazy reason a convention suggests a stupid amendment that screws us it makes no difference.  It still will have to be ratified just like when congress suggests an amendment.  And what on earth makes you think the people at the convention are more likely to propose bad amendments than congress?  
> ...


I agree.  But I wonder why state lawmakers don't seem to understand that the states still have to ratify any amendments proposed by a constitutional convention?  But also consider the following.

I think that enemies of the Constitution are well aware that it is possible for special-interest favoring, PC interpretations of the Constitution to be inadvertently "repealed" when the Constitution is amended.

----------


## 10thAmendment

> I agree.  But I wonder why state lawmakers don't seem to understand that the states still have to ratify any amendments proposed by a constitutional convention?  But also consider the following.
> 
> I think that enemies of the Constitution are well aware that it is possible for special-interest favoring, PC interpretations of the Constitution to be inadvertently "repealed" when the Constitution is amended.


With one reservation, I was evidently wrong about my previous assertion concerning why state lawmakers are avoiding a Con Con at this time, and I have a related question about that below.  But while reviewing the 21st A. which repealed the 18th A., I noticed that the federal Congress proposed that the states ratify the 21st A. with a popular vote (okay, state conventions).  The reason is evidently because federal Congressmen at that time felt that the state legislatures wouldn't ratify the 18th A. while voters in general would ratify it.

My question is, why did the Founders only give Congress the right to *propose* (may be proposed by the Congress) the method of amendment ratification as opposed to giving Congress final decision as to choosing the method of ratification?

In analogy, the Founders gave the president the right to *nominate* justices to the USSC as opposed to giving the president the power to appoint justices to the USSC.  In other words, the president is not the final decision maker with respect to deciding who new justices will be.

With that in mind, my question is couldn't state lawmakers ultimately decide the mode of ratification since the federal Congress only has the power to *propose* the mode of ratification?

As a side note, regarding the 21st A., I just noticed that both the Congress and state lawmakers might have wanted it to appear that Congress had the final decision in deciding the mode of ratification for the following reason.  The black market booze lords may have had a choke-hold on state lawmakers, Congress's "final decision" of ratification via state conventions being done to protect state lawmakers.

In fact, it shows that a New Mexico state law provides that the members of that state's legislature would themselves comprise a state convention (my wording).  If this is the case, and state legislatures are indeed the final decision-makers in mode of ratification, then what spooked Oklahoma lawmakers into rescinding all previous constitutional convention calls?

The bottom line is that I'm just trying to make sense out of Article V and booze politics concerning the ratification of the 21st Amendment and my own promoting of repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Otherwise, yes, MSM-misguided voters can butcher the Constitution with ill-conceived amendments via state convention ratifications as easily as they put constitutionally clueless Obama into the Oval Office.

----------


## TinCanToNA

So the only way to assure that action meets the intention is to propose an amendment to reword Article V so that the entities who call for the Con-Con have the authority to choose how delegates are chosen and how many, etc.  Interesting...

----------


## Peace&Freedom

The question of whether con-con attendees would rewrite ratification rules (along with the existing constitution itself) is a legitimate concern. My take is we have to consider taking that risk at this point in the disintegration of the once free republic. The truth is at present Congress, the President, and the courts *have already rewritten the ratification rules*, via passing laws that are robotically treated as constitutional, tyrannical executive orders that are rarely repealed, and judicial review which treats court precedent as the final word on constitutional matters.

We have to undo the legal infrastructure of legitimacy the other side has *already* unconstitutionally created. The tryants have methodically created an aura of technical legtimacy by such mechanisms, in the same manner as Nazi Germany preceded every tyranny they constructed by passing laws, policies, regulations and other findings to justify it. Repeat: everythig the Nazis did was legal under German law at the time they did it. Every day in every 'free' country, a con-con is currently happening in like manner, with statist gremlins bypassing the rules through artifice with each new crazy law, executive edict or high court decree.

We the People have to respond to similar legitimization of tyranny constructed here, and if a con-con rewriting amandments and ratification is the only way to do it, so be it.  At least it is a chance to level the playing field for changing things. If a con-con happens despite whatever our position is on it, we should be prepared to fight the battle on that front as well, and no longer leave the constitutional mangling process up to statists to keep doing behind the scenes and under the radar, as they are now.

Are we only prepared to fight the 'big' con-con that may be our only practical hope of change or repeal, while will let all the little con-cons that create the infrastructure for the robbing of our freedoms keep going on?

----------


## TheTyke

Lawmakers currently ignore an already superb Constitution. Why wouldn't they ignore a new/changed one? It would be a complete and utter disaster to let the current crop of politicians (at any level of government) at our Constitution.

As it stands, we can call them out for violating the Constitution and keep proving how it would have prevented our current messes, and it stands as a constant thorn reminding them of our founding ideals.

Trying for "improvements" that would be ignored anyway at the risk of losing the entire document that backs us up is foolish. The JBS is dead right on this issue.

----------


## Richard A Hamblen

Bear in mind that the central government treats a "for" vote on something they really want as binding, even if it is afterwards rescinded. New Jersey I believe withdrew its ratification vote for the 14th Amendment in 1867 after first approving it, but the Secretary of State refused to recognize that action, continuing to count it as a vote in favor. When the ratification failed because the recently conquered Confederate States refused to ratify, they were ejected from the Union and required to ratify the 14th Amendment as a condition of readmission. Funny how their vote in favor of the 13th Amendment was accepted as valid, while the rejection of the 14th by the same legislators got them expelled from the Union, and deprived of representation in the Senate, itself a direct violation of the Constitution. I am not as familiar with the ratification history of the failed ERA, but the overriding principle is that if those who are in power want a desired result, they will do whatever it takes to get it. Failing that, they will just ignore the law (and call out the troops as did Mr. Lincoln). As Joe Sobran famously said, "The Constitution poses no threat to our present form of government."

----------


## amy31416

In an atmosphere where bankers, Wall Street and lobbyists have so much sway with our government, a convention would scare the piss out of me.

----------


## Richard A Hamblen

You're not scared enough already?

----------


## amy31416

> You're not scared enough already?


Hmm, it's sort of a nebulous kind of fear. Not a "holy $#@! there's a spider on me!" kind of fear.

----------


## Richard A Hamblen

> Hmm, it's sort of a nebulous kind of fear. Not a "holy $#@! there's a spider on me!" kind of fear.


Well, you know the story about the frog and boiling water. You can't put him in there when it's hot, but if you start out with a pot of cold water, you can warm it till it boils him alive. The public is like that.

When you get to the "spider" stage, we may have some real change in this country!

----------

