LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/freedom-campaign/4820
Constitutional Convention Backers Want to Hijack the Tea Party Movement
Written by Larry Greenley
Thursday, 30 April 2009
As most of you already know, the Tax Day Tea Parties were a huge success in terms of number of gatherings (over 850) and total numbers participating (over 1 million according to some sources). From what I observed both in person at our Appleton, Wisconsin Tax Day Tea Party and online at various websites, the Tax Day Tea Parties were, for the most part, a genuine grassroots phenomenon. Just the diversity of signs showed that no one person or organization had planned the messages on the highly individualistic signs.
This spontaneous, grassroots nature of the tea party rallies was the most encouraging aspect of them. At last a broad cross-section of America had had enough with fiscal irresponsibility and excessive, inflationary spending, not to mention exorbitantly high taxes, and felt compelled to gather together in public places to protest out-of-control state and federal governments and the legislators of both parties who brought this problem about in the first place.
Nonetheless, less than two weeks after the tax day rallies, backers of a very dangerous threat to our Constitution have surfaced, and are actively working to have their agenda adopted by the Tea Party Movement’s grassroots organizers. This dangerous threat to our Constitution is none other than that perennial temptation, the constitutional convention, also known widely as a con-con.
A con-con would be convened by Congress in accordance with Article V of the Constitution, if 34 or more state legislatures petition Congress to call such a convention “for proposing amendments.” The dangerous aspect of a con-con is that there’s no way for the state legislatures to ensure that the constitutional convention would restrict itself to consideration of the specific amendment(s) that the state legislatures have based their con-con calls on. Therefore, a constitutional convention could consider and approve a wide range of amendments, never contemplated by the state legislatures who started the whole process. Whichever amendments approved by the constitutional convention that were ratified by three-fourths of the states would become part of the Constitution. Thus, given the huge influence on public opinion exerted by the biased media and political elites, the con-con process could very well result in radical changes in our Constitution which were never intended by the state legislators who called the con-con in the first place.
Here’s “Beware of Article V,” a video the John Birch Society produced in 1999 to help state legislators to understand the high risk to our Constitution involved in petitioning Congress for a con-con. It’s also valuable for informing concerned citizens about this issue. I highly recommend readers of this article take the 36 minutes required to view it or at the very least sample it.
YouTube - Beware Article V (part 1 of 4)
Now back to our story of how enthusiastic backers of a con-con are working to enlist the unsuspecting participants of the Tea Party movement in their very risky con-con project.
On April 23 the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece by Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University, “The Case for a Federalism Amendment: How the Tea Partiers can make Washington pay attention.” In this article, Barnett correctly observed that the Tenth Amendment “sovereignty resolutions,” under consideration by over half the states this year, are not likely to have the slightest impact on the federal courts. From this reasonable observation, Barnett proceeded to assert that “state legislatures have a real power under the Constitution by which to resist the growth of federal power: They can petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.”
Barnett then went on to admit that “An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance.” However, at this point he advocated a dangerous course. He proposed that the “tea-party enthusiasts” adopt the project of getting his Federalism Amendment added to the Constitution and also adopt his strategy of getting enough state legislatures to apply to Congress to call a constitutional convention, so that Congress becomes scared of the prospect of a con-con and agrees to endorse his amendment and present it to the states for ratification.
The problem with this strategy is that there’s no way to ensure that a con-con will not actually be convened in the process of this game of “playing chicken” with Congress with the Constitution at stake.
Next, on April 27 Barnett appeared as a guest on PajamasTV (click on link to view video) with host Michael Patrick Leahy, a leader in the Tea Party Movement. During the four days between his WSJ article of April 23 and his PajamasTV appearance of April 27, Barnett changed his mind about his former strategy of scaring Congress into adopting his amendment with the threat of a con-con. Although he still acknowledges that there is widespread fear of a con-con, and he has some worries about one, he is now convinced that the risks involved with a con-con are worth taking in order to get his 10 amendments presented to the states for ratification. He puts a lot of stock in the requirement that three-fourths of the states are required to ratify whatever amendments might issue from a con-con. He believes this mechanism would surely prevent any truly bad amendment from being ratified.
Of course, this is the crux of the issue. The John Birch Society along with leading constitutional scholars have consistently maintained over the past few decades that there is no way to control what amendments would be considered and adopted by a constitutional convention, and that the requirement that three-fourths of the states must ratify an amendment is not sufficient protection for the Constitution in this age of widespread ignorance of the Constitution and its role in securing our freedoms.
During those same four days, Barnett also changed his project from proposing one amendment, the “Federalism Amendment,” with five parts to proposing ten amendments, to be known as “the Bill of Federalism.”
Michael Patrick Leahy, co-founder of TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) and through his participation in http://taxdayteaparty.com/ an important national organizer of the Tax Day Tea Parties, supports Barnett’s con-con project to the hilt. In his blog for April 25, “The Bill of Federalism: 10 Amendments to be proposed to the States for Ratification,” Leahy stated that Professor Barnett was drafting “The Bill of Federalism,” consisting of ten proposed amendments to the Constitution. Leahy went on to write:
By the time of the PajamasTV show on April 27, Barnett and Leahy were in complete agreement on the strategy of working for a con-con to get Barnett’s new list of ten amendments submitted to the states for ratification. Here’s a chilling quote from the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition website (Leahy is a leader of this group) which is working on proposed actions for the July 4th tea parties:
Talk about hijacking the tea party movement for a risky venture involving our Constitution!
The staff and members of the John Birch Society, as well as the large number of state legislators of both parties that our members have worked with over the past 20 years, are very familiar with how seemingly attractive the concept of a con-con can be until further study reveals the high degree of risk involved.
The “Beware of Article V” video embedded near the top of this article has been our most effective resource for convincing state legislators against petitioning Congress for a con-con. We recommend that you show and/or give the “Beware of Article V” video (free to view online; DVD available to buy online) to the organizers of tea party events in your area. It is especially important to help them understand the dangers of a con-con as they are planning for speakers and action agendas for the July 4th tea parties.
Now for some context on what’s been happening with con-con resolutions in state legislatures during the past 20 years, here’s an excerpt from an article I wrote on the topic last December:
The bottom line is that we don’t have any comfort margin. If Congress and/or the federal courts would decide not to count the ten state rescissions as valid, then as few as only two more states petitioning Congress for a balanced budget amendment con-con could trigger the convening of a con-con. Furthermore, there is a small minority viewpoint that all of the existing petitions to Congress by state legislatures for a con-con (no matter what the specific reason stated in the petition was) should be added together to get the 34 states required. Initiating a con-con campaign in the manner proposed by Barnett and Leahy could well serve to strengthen the concept that we already have enough con-con calls to convene a constitutional convention.
The only prudent strategy for us is to defeat con-con calls in every state where such resolutions are introduced and to advise state legislators against even introducing such resolutions in the first place. Our primary educational tool is the “Beware of Article V” video discussed above.
Our first priority is to persuade the grassroots leaders of the Tea Party Movement not to adopt Barnett and Leahy’s risky con-con strategy. Instead, we must secure our freedom by preserving our Constitution. Our strategy for lowering taxes and reducing the size and cost of government is to create enough grassroots pressure to force Congress to adhere to the Constitution as it is.
Constitutional Convention Backers Want to Hijack the Tea Party Movement
Written by Larry Greenley
Thursday, 30 April 2009
As most of you already know, the Tax Day Tea Parties were a huge success in terms of number of gatherings (over 850) and total numbers participating (over 1 million according to some sources). From what I observed both in person at our Appleton, Wisconsin Tax Day Tea Party and online at various websites, the Tax Day Tea Parties were, for the most part, a genuine grassroots phenomenon. Just the diversity of signs showed that no one person or organization had planned the messages on the highly individualistic signs.
This spontaneous, grassroots nature of the tea party rallies was the most encouraging aspect of them. At last a broad cross-section of America had had enough with fiscal irresponsibility and excessive, inflationary spending, not to mention exorbitantly high taxes, and felt compelled to gather together in public places to protest out-of-control state and federal governments and the legislators of both parties who brought this problem about in the first place.
Nonetheless, less than two weeks after the tax day rallies, backers of a very dangerous threat to our Constitution have surfaced, and are actively working to have their agenda adopted by the Tea Party Movement’s grassroots organizers. This dangerous threat to our Constitution is none other than that perennial temptation, the constitutional convention, also known widely as a con-con.
A con-con would be convened by Congress in accordance with Article V of the Constitution, if 34 or more state legislatures petition Congress to call such a convention “for proposing amendments.” The dangerous aspect of a con-con is that there’s no way for the state legislatures to ensure that the constitutional convention would restrict itself to consideration of the specific amendment(s) that the state legislatures have based their con-con calls on. Therefore, a constitutional convention could consider and approve a wide range of amendments, never contemplated by the state legislatures who started the whole process. Whichever amendments approved by the constitutional convention that were ratified by three-fourths of the states would become part of the Constitution. Thus, given the huge influence on public opinion exerted by the biased media and political elites, the con-con process could very well result in radical changes in our Constitution which were never intended by the state legislators who called the con-con in the first place.
Here’s “Beware of Article V,” a video the John Birch Society produced in 1999 to help state legislators to understand the high risk to our Constitution involved in petitioning Congress for a con-con. It’s also valuable for informing concerned citizens about this issue. I highly recommend readers of this article take the 36 minutes required to view it or at the very least sample it.
YouTube - Beware Article V (part 1 of 4)
Now back to our story of how enthusiastic backers of a con-con are working to enlist the unsuspecting participants of the Tea Party movement in their very risky con-con project.
On April 23 the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece by Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University, “The Case for a Federalism Amendment: How the Tea Partiers can make Washington pay attention.” In this article, Barnett correctly observed that the Tenth Amendment “sovereignty resolutions,” under consideration by over half the states this year, are not likely to have the slightest impact on the federal courts. From this reasonable observation, Barnett proceeded to assert that “state legislatures have a real power under the Constitution by which to resist the growth of federal power: They can petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.”
Barnett then went on to admit that “An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance.” However, at this point he advocated a dangerous course. He proposed that the “tea-party enthusiasts” adopt the project of getting his Federalism Amendment added to the Constitution and also adopt his strategy of getting enough state legislatures to apply to Congress to call a constitutional convention, so that Congress becomes scared of the prospect of a con-con and agrees to endorse his amendment and present it to the states for ratification.
The problem with this strategy is that there’s no way to ensure that a con-con will not actually be convened in the process of this game of “playing chicken” with Congress with the Constitution at stake.
Next, on April 27 Barnett appeared as a guest on PajamasTV (click on link to view video) with host Michael Patrick Leahy, a leader in the Tea Party Movement. During the four days between his WSJ article of April 23 and his PajamasTV appearance of April 27, Barnett changed his mind about his former strategy of scaring Congress into adopting his amendment with the threat of a con-con. Although he still acknowledges that there is widespread fear of a con-con, and he has some worries about one, he is now convinced that the risks involved with a con-con are worth taking in order to get his 10 amendments presented to the states for ratification. He puts a lot of stock in the requirement that three-fourths of the states are required to ratify whatever amendments might issue from a con-con. He believes this mechanism would surely prevent any truly bad amendment from being ratified.
Of course, this is the crux of the issue. The John Birch Society along with leading constitutional scholars have consistently maintained over the past few decades that there is no way to control what amendments would be considered and adopted by a constitutional convention, and that the requirement that three-fourths of the states must ratify an amendment is not sufficient protection for the Constitution in this age of widespread ignorance of the Constitution and its role in securing our freedoms.
During those same four days, Barnett also changed his project from proposing one amendment, the “Federalism Amendment,” with five parts to proposing ten amendments, to be known as “the Bill of Federalism.”
Michael Patrick Leahy, co-founder of TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) and through his participation in http://taxdayteaparty.com/ an important national organizer of the Tax Day Tea Parties, supports Barnett’s con-con project to the hilt. In his blog for April 25, “The Bill of Federalism: 10 Amendments to be proposed to the States for Ratification,” Leahy stated that Professor Barnett was drafting “The Bill of Federalism,” consisting of ten proposed amendments to the Constitution. Leahy went on to write:
Upon completion of the final version of The Bill of Federalism, we will encourage selected state legislators to introduce a bill to petition Congress to Convene a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of passing The Bill of Federalism, thereafter sending it to the states for ratification.
If 2/3 of the states petition Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention, Congress must convene one. Alternatively, Congress may pass The Bill of Federalism on its own, and submit it to the states for ratification.
If 2/3 of the states petition Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention, Congress must convene one. Alternatively, Congress may pass The Bill of Federalism on its own, and submit it to the states for ratification.
By the time of the PajamasTV show on April 27, Barnett and Leahy were in complete agreement on the strategy of working for a con-con to get Barnett’s new list of ten amendments submitted to the states for ratification. Here’s a chilling quote from the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition website (Leahy is a leader of this group) which is working on proposed actions for the July 4th tea parties:
Here's an action step worth considering: Georgetown Professor of Constitutional Law Randy Barnett points out that "Article 5 [of the Constitution] provides that on the application of the legislatures of 2/3 of the several states, Congress shall call for a convention for proposing amendments." We could hold tea parties at the capitol buildings in all 50 states while the state legislatures are in session, and demand that they apply to Congress to hold such a convention.
Talk about hijacking the tea party movement for a risky venture involving our Constitution!
The staff and members of the John Birch Society, as well as the large number of state legislators of both parties that our members have worked with over the past 20 years, are very familiar with how seemingly attractive the concept of a con-con can be until further study reveals the high degree of risk involved.
The “Beware of Article V” video embedded near the top of this article has been our most effective resource for convincing state legislators against petitioning Congress for a con-con. We recommend that you show and/or give the “Beware of Article V” video (free to view online; DVD available to buy online) to the organizers of tea party events in your area. It is especially important to help them understand the dangers of a con-con as they are planning for speakers and action agendas for the July 4th tea parties.
Now for some context on what’s been happening with con-con resolutions in state legislatures during the past 20 years, here’s an excerpt from an article I wrote on the topic last December:
... Back in the mid 1970s a balanced budget amendment (bba) movement sprang up and by 1983 it had led to 32 state legislatures asking Congress to call an Article V constitutional convention.
Enter the JBS. 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 got involved in this fight in the 1980s, not one more state has approved a balanced budget amendment con-con. What's more these intrepid Birchers worked closely with their state legislators in many states which led to ten 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 con-con calls, there are only 22 states with "live" (unrescinded) bba con-con calls.
While subtracting ten states off the total with live calls for a bba con-con is very valuable, we do have to realize that the pro con-con forces will argue that the rescissions are not valid and should not be subtracted from the 32 states which originally made their bba con-con calls. They'll argue that the score is still 32 states with only two more needed before Congress calls a con-con. Since we can't predict the outcome of such maneuvering, it's most prudent to work very hard to ensure that no more bba calls are made.
Enter the JBS. 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 got involved in this fight in the 1980s, not one more state has approved a balanced budget amendment con-con. What's more these intrepid Birchers worked closely with their state legislators in many states which led to ten 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 con-con calls, there are only 22 states with "live" (unrescinded) bba con-con calls.
While subtracting ten states off the total with live calls for a bba con-con is very valuable, we do have to realize that the pro con-con forces will argue that the rescissions are not valid and should not be subtracted from the 32 states which originally made their bba con-con calls. They'll argue that the score is still 32 states with only two more needed before Congress calls a con-con. Since we can't predict the outcome of such maneuvering, it's most prudent to work very hard to ensure that no more bba calls are made.
The bottom line is that we don’t have any comfort margin. If Congress and/or the federal courts would decide not to count the ten state rescissions as valid, then as few as only two more states petitioning Congress for a balanced budget amendment con-con could trigger the convening of a con-con. Furthermore, there is a small minority viewpoint that all of the existing petitions to Congress by state legislatures for a con-con (no matter what the specific reason stated in the petition was) should be added together to get the 34 states required. Initiating a con-con campaign in the manner proposed by Barnett and Leahy could well serve to strengthen the concept that we already have enough con-con calls to convene a constitutional convention.
The only prudent strategy for us is to defeat con-con calls in every state where such resolutions are introduced and to advise state legislators against even introducing such resolutions in the first place. Our primary educational tool is the “Beware of Article V” video discussed above.
Our first priority is to persuade the grassroots leaders of the Tea Party Movement not to adopt Barnett and Leahy’s risky con-con strategy. Instead, we must secure our freedom by preserving our Constitution. Our strategy for lowering taxes and reducing the size and cost of government is to create enough grassroots pressure to force Congress to adhere to the Constitution as it is.
Last edited:
Ain't that just great.
