Convention-of-States-Cover-Image-1024x341
By Nancy Thorner – 

There are enemies, foreign and domestic, to our United States Constitution.  Some want to make our Constitution more globalist-friendly, some want to dilute the Second Amendment, and some want to eliminate the Electoral College.  Some simply want to become important by rewriting our Constitution.  

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced on February 6th that she would like to change the Electoral College requirement in the Constitution. Without that, no non-incumbent Republican candidate would have won the presidency in the last quarter century. Without the Electoral College, money alone would dictate the outcome in presidential elections.

Suspect Funding in Pushing “Convention of States”

Why have billionaires been pouring millions into pushing a project deceptively named the “Convention of States,” which seeks an Article V convention that could rewrite our entire U.S. Constitution?  These hidden donors may be connected with George Soros or with the Koch brothers, who are not socially conservative.  Regardless of who the financial backers are, they secretly think they will rewrite our Constitution and they are spending millions to do so.

Big funders of the “Convention of States” must certainly be cognizant that Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amending our Constitution. Congress either 1) Proposes amendments or 2) calls a convention to propose amendments if 34 States apply for it.  

The first method was used for our existing 27 amendments: Congress proposed them and sent them to the States for ratification or rejection. 

Under the second method, Congress calls a convention. We have never had a convention under Article V, for such conventions are extremely dangerous.

Might there be a reason why George Soros is pushing for a “Convention of States”?  Could it be because George Soros, and Marxist law professors all over the country, want a Marxist Constitution in place by the year 2020.

Attempt to call for Article V rejected in Cleveland by Rep. National Platform

Last July in Cleveland, the Republican national platform committee resoundingly rejected an attempt to include a call for an Article V convention into the platform.  Justice Antonin Scalia, in his final year before he passed away, explained at a public event in May 2015 that it was a “horrible idea” to hold an Article V convention to change the Constitution. Other conservative leaders throughout history, from Phyllis Schlafly to James Madison, have emphatically rejected this bad idea.

Yet Article V proposals are presently being considered in state legislatures, even Republican ones, where bill are being advanced seeking to launch a new constitutional convention that would undoubtedly be dominated by the liberal media, by Democrats, and by Republicans who have earned the title of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).  Most likely the big money behind the Article V project is with pro-immigration advocates and those who reject American-sovereignty, which could end border security.  The first thing liberals would do in an Article V Convention is attempt to repeal the Second Amendment and further insert a right to taxpayer-funded abortion into the Constitution.


Fortunately, only eight states have enacted the Convention of States out of the 34 required to force a constitutional convention, some using different language different from others.  They are:  Alaska HJR 22, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana SJR 14, Louisiana HCR 52, Oklahoma, and Tennessee SJR 67.  Each of these eight states should rescind its call.   A recent example is the rescission by Delaware of all of its prior resolutions for a Con Con.  Some efforts at rescission 2017 occurred in New Hampshire and New Mexico.
Seventeen states are being targeted in 2017 by promoters of a constitutional convention (also known as “Con Con” or “Convention of States”).  They are: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas (Constitution requires a 2/3’s super–majority vote), Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota,Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

As of Feb. 17, 2017, there have been five wins and no losses.  Victories have been in Arkansas (Defeated by a 13-17 vote on Senate floor on 1/30/17); South Dakota (Despite COS having three paid lobbyists in 2016, S.D. voted against a COS in a  28-40 House Vote on 2/13/17); Virginia (Convention of States lobbied its Legislature on January 16 — called “Lee and Jackson Day” in Virginia — but the measure lost.); in Wyoming (COS Failed 18-42 on 1/30/17); and in Montana, with its victory on Feb. 17, 2017.

What is the Truth and who has the power to do what?

Our Constitution is not the problem!  An Article V convention to change our Constitution cannot be limited as part of an application for one, such as inserting a Balanced Budget Amendment. The text of the Constitution expressly states that only Congress may “call” a constitutional convention.  It would not be a “convention of states”, but instead it would be convened  (called) under the direction of power-brokers in Washington, D.C.
 
It is prudent to remember that the original Constitutional Convention had three essential conditions that do not exist today: 1) secrecy from the media, 2) participants who fought in the American Revolution against tyranny, and 3) George Washington presiding.  Today, instead of men of the caliber of Benjamin Franklin, we would have liberals like Barney Frank rewriting our Constitution.

Also of great concern, is that big liberal states like California and New York would have greater power at an Article V convention than most conservative states would.  Why?  Because the Supreme Court has required the “one man, one vote” rule since 1964; therefore, in calling a convention, the House of Representatives would also require voting based on population.

What are some of the myths that convention proponents are telling State Legislators?  
  • States can bypass Congress in the amendment process.
  • Congress will play only a ministerial role in setting the time and place of the convention.
  • State make the rules for a convention, by custom, when there is no custom.
  • State voting power will be “one state, one vote.”
  • A “Convention of States” is an “Amendments” convention, not a “constitutional convention”, so the Constitution is not at risk.
  • An Article V convention can be “limited” to a topic or set of topics.
  • State Legislatures can control their delegates.
  • The ratification process ensures no bad amendments will be passed.
Why a Convention of the States and a Balanced Budget Amendment is No Solution

Adding amendments to the Constitution, which is not being enforced is no solution, as no new amendments of a conservative nature would be enforced either. Should a Balanced Budget Amendment pass the convention and be ratified by the states, it will do nothing but give the big-spenders cover to raise taxes to conform to the BBA in the constitution.

The convention would neither be a ‘We the People’ convention, but instead a convention of state appointed legislators messing with our original constitution.

Instead, the focus should be on supporting Trump in his efforts to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C., which should dispel the notion that it’s necessary to tinker with our Constitution.  What could Mark Levin be thinking with his push for a Con Con?

To be rejected are the tactics of the Left that are being employed to try to pass a “Convention of States” by using secret donors and hidden agendas.  We should not allow the “bait-and-switch” tactics to prevail by pretending that an Article V Convention would result in changes in our Constitution that are pleasing. It might result in a Constitution more to the liking of those who are pushing for a Con Con, but not for those Americans who would have to live under it!  
Other Con Con articles by Nancy Thorner: