Darren Weeks
Header - Coalition to Govern America - Govern America with Darren Weeks and Vicky Davis

onair1



More Streams & Listen Info...

Saturday, September 23rd, 2017

We have 247 guests and no members online

‘Crossing the Line’ to a Constitutional Convention

Darren Weeks
Coalition to Govern America
February 15, 2016

 

In case you haven’t heard, Michigan has now passed its Constitutional Convention resolution, calling upon the Congress of the United States to open a convention for the purpose of passing a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We shouldn’t have to rehash all of the arguments we’ve made in the past about the absolute lunacy of this action. But for the sake of new readers, we’ll touch upon some, anyway.

Who will the delegates to a convention be? The ones from Michigan will be appointed by the leadership, under legislation passed by the state House. Other states could have elections. Given the electronic voting system fraud and our highly rigged general elections, this observer is not very optimistic about either outcome.

A Constitutional Convention is a danger because a convention, once called, becomes its own sovereign entity. This means they can change, modify, alter, or completely scrap the U.S. Constitution at no one else’s discretion but their own. There have been many warnings about the dangers of a convention through the years by Constitutional experts, including former Supreme Court justices.

The Michigan House passed legislation with an amendment (pdf) that contained a provision that delegates could be recalled by the individual who appointed them. This was offered to me by Rep. Earl Poleski’s office as an assurance that they won’t act up — i.e. if delegates didn’t follow state instructions, they could be recalled. Other states have passed similar measures with some even going so far as to attempt to make it a felony for delegates to ignore state instructions. As I explained to the Poleski people, none of this matters. Delegates do not have to listen to the states. The convention becomes supreme — even trumping the other three branches of federal power. Assuming the motives of the leadership, charged with the task of appointing delegates to the convention, were pure — which is allowing for a world of potential mischief — how would the leadership know if their delegates were “getting out of line”? The delegates to a modern day convention might well bar the door shut, nail closed the windows, and cut off any contact with the outside world. That is what they did back in 1787.

Those who dismiss the notion that a “runaway” convention idea is “absurd” are either living in la-la land, or are lying deceivers. This writer leans toward the latter. To suggest that a meeting with such high stakes on the outcome could be immune from corporate influence and tampering, corruptions of special interests, and modern day media circuses is the height of naivety and foolishness. By virtue of making such a claim, the utterance ought to serve as due justification to label the fool thus speaking as untrustworthy and incredible.

 

The deceivers often point to the fact that the states would have to ratify any changes coming out of a convention, and that would be an adequate safeguard against a complete re-write or a bad amendment. The false sense of security they are attempting to instill within their audience is representative of the overall cherry-picking of the facts that is too common amongst the agenda pushers. This argument deliberately ignores the ratification process that is specifically laid out in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose  Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths thereof, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress....

 

Notice that the language of Article V doesn't guarantee ratifications by the legislatures of the states. If you think it did, then carefully read it again. It leaves open the possibility that Ratifying Conventions may be used. Furthermore, the Congress gets to decide the method of ratification — the same scumbags who got us into the fiscal mess in the first place, now get to decide on the deciders. What could possibly go wrong with this scenario?

 

The pushers of the balanced budget amendment nonsense are often the same people who bemoan that Congress isn’t following the Constitution. Though the latter — in some cases — is true, there are still many things in the Constitution that are, indeed, followed. Do we wish to toss those measures into the air in the hopes they will land again in an orderly fashion?

Furthermore, as I’ve said often, if a standard is being violated, the “answer” isn’t to lessen the standard. Additionally, it is just as pointless to throw up a new standard when the old one is constantly being breached. We draw a line, they cross it. We draw another line, they cross it. And on and on it goes.

The nonsensical argument that we have to pass an amendment to a Constitution that Congress is already ignoring is akin to drawing a line in the sand that we know they will cross. No right-thinking person would logically believe that this is a strategy that would work. When you add into the mix the inherent dangers involved in opening up the Pandora’s box of a convention,  continuing to pursue a Con Con in the face of these hazards, borders on insanity — or, perhaps, sedition. It makes no sense unless, of course, your goal is a complete coup d'état of the American system of government. What they are after has nothing to do with a balanced budget. That’s the bait. What they are after is — everything. They want it all.

Your gun rights; your freedom of speech; your freedom of assembly; your freedom of religion; your freedom against self-incrimination; your freedom to not be tried repeatedly for the same capital crime until they get the “guilty” verdict they want; your freedom against having your property taken without just compensation; your freedom against being unlawfully searched without probable cause; your freedom of the press — which could mean the controlled, corporate media, but it also means you can have your own “press”; your freedom against cruel and unusual punishments; and above all — the rights and sovereignty of the states over the federal government. The last one, I contend, is the protection over which the usurpers salivate the most.

The passage of the Constitutional Convention resolution in Michigan is motivating these long-standing enemies of the Republic to push Congress to act, as they say they have the necessary number of states to move forward with the convention. The count they are using obviously doesn’t take into consideration the many rescissions that different states have issued over the years. Legislators become alarmed after learning that the delegates to a convention do not have to listen to the states, once the convention convenes. They become even more alarmed, rightfully so, when they learn that they’ve been lied to about the ratification process to an amendment — or a whole new Constitution, such as the case may be — is not a safeguard against a “runaway” convention, where the delegates disregard state instructions, as they did back in 1787.

All of the new convention efforts, over the years, have consistently relied upon the ignorance of state lawmakers. Since there is typically a steady turnover of legislators, there is a fresh opportunity to try again. That is exactly what the Con Con creeps at the American Legislative Exchange Council and elsewhere, have done.

It is this writer’s view that it is highly doubtful that they have the necessary number of states to lawfully convene the convention. What I believe they will do if they can get Congress to go along with them, is to ignore the past state rescissions, and move forward with the convention while it is challenged in the courts.

Where does that leave “We the People”? There are three points of action that must be taken immediately. First, we must begin to educate ordinary people around us that they are about to lose everything they have long taken for granted. This is not a game. It isn’t playtime. Secondly, people living in states where the Con Con resolutions have not yet passed, must continue to watch and act accordingly if they find similar resolutions. There are still many states in play that have not yet passed a measure calling for the convention. We must not allow the strategies of the nefarious to become a self-defeating proposition for our side. In other words, don’t give up. A convention hasn’t been called; we haven’t lost yet. While I don't place a whole lot of confidence in the courts to fend off attacks against the people, miracles do occasionally happen. The last thing we need is to take the usurpers at their word, presume they're going ahead with the convention, and then allow them to get the necessary number of states even with the rescissions. That could happen if we don't stay the course. Third, people living in those states who have resolutions that have already passed, must continue to work to get those resolutions rescinded. While there is indeed no guarantee that the rescissions will count, there is no guarantee they won’t either.

Of course, I guess for the willfully-ignorant who wish to remain blissfully detached, with their mesmerized faces impermeably buried in the glowing screen of their smart phones, narcotized into an electronic coma state of bliss, or the whiners who like to complain but offer nothing in the form of action, there is the option of “giving up”. Freedom is, after all, hard work. I mean, what have you got to lose? It’s only your country.

 

 

You must be logged in to post comments.