Ok, I am going to say this ONE
MORE TIME! THEY ARE PULLING
A CON JOB ON AMERICANS IF YOU FALL FOR THIS!
A CON CON is the
MOST DANGEROUS THING WE COULD DO! These guys are PAID CELEBRITIES FOR
CONTROLLED OPPOSITION!
When are you going to get that?
Think these IDIOTS are real patriots…then why did RUSH endorse the book
ENVIRONMENTAL OVERKILL
By Dixie Lee Ray in 1993 and it
exposed CLIMATE CONTROL AND DDT AND AGENDA 21…do you hear A PEEP out of his
GOLDEN MIKE? He has
Had TWENTY YEARS TO HOLLER FOR
HELP! ALL I HEAR IS CRICKETS!!!
HANNITY…a radio show and TV show…what
has he accomplished for FREEDOM…except money making concerts! NOTHING! Does he
Cover the REAL ISSUES….NO! BUT
HE WILL GIVE YOU A CONCERT SO YOU CAN CLAP YOUR HANDS!!!
And good ol’ MARK LEVIN… REAGAN
staff…don’t get me started, REAGAN who did the largest AMNESTY on this country
and other things
You wouldn’t believe…CONTRA…and
this guy is apparently the “CONSTITIONAL GOD”…it’s easy to be “GOD” when it
comes to the CONSTITUTION
Because the WE THE STUPID PEOPLE…DO
NOT KNOW THE CONSTITUTION…so you go right along with this guy!
Oh, and I found it very
interesting when I was given a heads up by a Constitutional EXPERT last year
that the Goldwater Institute suddenly
received MILLIONS of dollars
from an UNNAMED source to push a Constitutional Convention. An UNNAMED
source. YOU FIGURE IT OUT>
Another sell out!
WISE UP!!! WE ARE GOING TO LOSE
OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE YOU TRUST THE KARDISIANS of the CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT!!!
I
understand frustration, but these icons are stupid, stupid people. Roy C.
Thursday, 22 August 2013 10:44
Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity Calling for Con-Con
In his new book, The
Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic,
“conservative” radio talk show host Mark Levin is calling for a new
constitutional convention (con-con) “to reform the federal government from its
degenerate, bloated, imperial structure back to its (smaller) republican
roots,” as reported by Forbes.
Levin, it should be noted, is notorious among many segments of
the conservative spectrum for his assertion that the president of the United
States has power to "make war."
Levin’s fellow radio rabble-rousers, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, have joined him in this
movement.
Hannity hosted Levin on August 16 for a one-hour special on the
Fox News program Hannity,
referring to Levin as "the Great One" and allowing Levin to explain
his plan for an Article V convention to amend the Constitution.
Limbaugh, speaking of Levin's idea, said on his syndicated
program:
I don’t want to say it’s simple, but it makes so much sense....
And it is something that, the more people read it, the more people become
familiar with it and demand that something be done to reaffirm and strengthen
the Constitution, it’s something like this that is going to be necessary ...
The American people have the power to change this.
After praising Limbaugh, the story in Forbes, written by a
self-commissioned “foot soldier” in the battle to bring to pass a
constitutional convention, lists a few of the usual suspects in the ranks of
the purportedly growing con-con army: Mark Meckler, head of Citizens for
Self-Governance and co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots; Nick Dranias of the
Goldwater Institute; and Independence Institute’s constitutional scholar,
Robert G. Natelson.
At one time, all of these “conservatives” have proposed various
con-con schemes, promoting them as the only way to force the federal beast back
inside the cage of the Constitution.
The particular provision of the Constitution relied on by the
con-con proponents is Article V. In relevant part, Article
V states:
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 of the several states, or by conventions in three
fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed
by the Congress.
One of the “evils” Levin and his cohorts claim would be
eliminated by an Article V con-con is the runaway federal spending spree. In
fact, Nick Dranias (of the Goldwater Institute) and others have pushed for a
con-con that would be empowered specifically and exclusively to consider a
Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).
Before state legislatures vote for an Article V con-con proposal
that could cause real and radical damage to our Constitution, they should first
consider whether a balanced budget amendment is necessary and whether it would
actually steer our Republic away from the fiscal problems we are facing. The
fact is that determined citizens and state legislators could rescue the United
States from its financial peril without resorting to opening up the
Constitution to tinkering by state-appointed delegates, many of whom would be
bought and paid for by special interests and corporations.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and
free ... it expects what never was and never will be.” A fundamental
requirement of vigilance is holding elected representatives’ feet to the fire
by compelling them to honor their oath of office and not exceed the limits of
their power as set forth in the Constitution.
Furthermore, there is no historical proof that a balanced budget
amendment would drive Congress back to within its constitutional corral. Even
the most conservative estimates indicate that about 80 percent of expenditures
approved by Congress violate the U.S. Constitution. That fact wouldn’t change
by adding an amendment to the Constitution.
Whether these bills spend our national treasure on
unconstitutional and undeclared foreign wars, billions sent overseas in the
form of foreign aid, expanding the so-called entitlement programs, or
redistributing wealth via corporate and individual welfare schemes, none of
these outlays is authorized by the Constitution.
And don’t forget, a committed, concerned, and constitutionally
aware citizenry can balance our budget more quickly than any balanced budget
amendment and without the danger of letting the wolves of special interests and
their political puppets into the constitutional hen house.
Perhaps the most critical consideration that must be made by
well-intentioned Americans anxious to do something to change the current course
and to restore this country to its constitutional foundations is the indisputable
threat to liberty posed by an Article V con-con as proposed by Mark Levin in
his new book.
Despite the crushing weight of evidence produced by The John
Birch Society, Eagle Forum, and other constitutionalist organizations, Levin
and like-minded con-con supporters insist that the constitutional convention
held in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 did not exceed its mandate. In fact,
based on the undeniable success of the constitutional convention of 1787, those
calling for a new constitutional convention claim that a new con-con could
accomplish just as much good as the first convention and be kept from becoming
a “runaway convention” that could result in a new constitution, one that
doesn’t resemble the current one.
Furthermore, the con-con claque claims that the historical
record of the convention of 1787 proves that it was not a “runaway convention”
and that a modern-day convention could be carried out without exceeding a very
limited purpose.
Unfortunately,
this account of those seminal events is not accurate.
A core premise of their conclusion is that the delegates to the
Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia did not exceed their mandate. In an
earlier report published by the Goldwater Institute, the claim was made that,
“48 of the 55 delegates [to the Philadelphia Convention] had instructions which
allowed them to go beyond amending the Articles of Confederation.”
To assert, then, that the
Constitutional Convention was not “runaway” with regard to those 48 delegates
is arguably true. However, what of the seven delegates whose commissions
expressly forbade them from ratifying, or even participating in, any proposal
calling for the dismantling of the government created by the Articles of
Confederation? What of the states represented by those delegates? Yet
after ratification of the Constitution crafted in Philadelphia, the citizens
and governments in those states were considered to be equally bound to abide by
the terms of that contract.
More importantly, regardless of any state or congressional
legislation requiring them to consider only a balanced budget amendment, the
assembled delegates to a new constitutional convention would possess unlimited,
though not unprecedented, power to propose revisions to the existing
Constitution, based on the inherent right of the People in convention to alter
or revise their government.
The prospect of a convention endowed with power of this
magnitude, populated by politicians (many of whom would likely be bought and
paid for by powerful lobbyists and special interest groups) determined to
tinker with the precision gears that give movement to works of our mighty
Republic, is frightening and should give pause to everyone considering
enlisting in the forces fighting for a con-con.
While Levin, Meckler, Dranias, Natelson, et al, are educated men
who desire to do something to demolish the Leviathan that is consuming our
country and shredding our Constitution, their method is poorly chosen and
potentially fatal.
To begin with, rather than expose the Constitution to the whims
of special interest groups, political action committees, corporations, and the
politicians they pay for, why not enforce the Constitution as written?
For example, there is not a single syllable in the Constitution
providing for foreign aid ($74 billion spent from 2010-2011), undeclared wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq (nearly $4 trillion spent since 2001), or the 185
federal welfare programs (nearly $2 trillion spent from 2010-2011). In the past
decade, based on just those three examples alone, Congress has authorized the
spending of over $6 trillion for unconstitutional purposes! Wouldn’t the
country’s economic outlook be improved by forcing our federal representatives
to obey the limits on their power as provided by the Constitution, rather than
allowing the delegates to a new constitutional convention (and the powerful
interests many of them would be financially beholden to) to produce some
document that not only would do nothing to restrain the federal government, but
could potentially rewrite our Constitution? The certain risks associated with a
con-con far outweigh the promised benefits of a balanced-budget amendment.
Fortunately, there is another way for states to exercise their
collective authority on the federal government without resorting to a
constitutional convention. It is the concept described by Thomas Jefferson as
the “rightful remedy” for any and all unconstitutional acts of the federal
government: nullification.
Simply stated, nullification is a concept of legal statutory
construction that endows each state with the right to nullify, or invalidate,
any federal measure that a state deems unconstitutional. Nullification is
founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as
creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the
power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states
and the citizens thereof.
With these facts in mind, it would seem that our nation’s fiscal
and political well-being is better served by governors jealous of their states’
sovereignty and their rightful role as “shelters against the abuse of power,”
signing into law state bills nullifying unconstitutional federal measures
(including those that have propelled our national indebtedness into the
stratosphere) than by a constitutional convention with unchecked power to amend
our Constitution out of existence in the name of balancing the budget.
What’s more, by seeking out and electing federal representatives
committed to never voting for a single spending bill that violates the
enumerated powers of the Constitution and refusing to reelect those members of
Congress that do vote for such measures, the federal budget would be balanced —
by following the Constitution, not “fixing” it.
Enforcing the Constitution and demanding that states stand up to
their would-be federal overlords accomplishes the same goal as Levin’s proposed
con-con without putting the Constitution so close to the shredder that an
Article V convention could become.
Despite Levin’s personal popularity and the powerful electronic
bully pulpit he commands, conservatives that find themselves in general
agreement with his positions must forcefully reject the Article V
constitutional convention he is advocating.
No matter the soothing words and the slate of scholars standing
with Levin, the convention they’re calling for would be beyond the control of
the people or their representatives and could result in the proposal by the
assembled delegates of potentially fatal and irreversible alterations to our
Constitution that could very well end up being ratified.
Image: screen
grab from Fox News' "Hannity," featuring Mark Levin (left) and Sean
Hannity, Aug 16
Yours in the Bill of Rights,
Roy G. Callhan, USN/Ret
Gainesville Florida 32606-5239
Member, Florida Oath Keepers and John Birch Society.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the child: Article 14
includes this qualification: “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or
beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and
are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the
fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”
Victoria
Baer
The Baer
Edge, Inc.
904.
982. 1734 phone
904.
996. 1510 fax
Give
your business the competitive EDGE….
No comments:
Post a Comment