In the late 70s and early 80s, many grassroots Americans found out about the movement for a new Constitutional Convention (con-con). By 1986, 32 of the 34 states needed for a new constitutional convention had passed calls for a convention. The reason used for this call for a con-con was for a balanced budget amendment. Sounds great doesn’t it? However, it was a ruse used by those who want to radically change our constitution and basically destroy the founding fathers’ document. Many of the states and most of the legislators that called for a con-con did so without any public oversight or knowledge, basically because it was a good sounding conservative idea to require a balanced budget amendment.
Seven to ten of the 32 states have succeeded in recalling their calls for a con-con, including Alabama, Louisiana and Florida. The opportunity to change the constitution exists in Article V, which says the constitution can be changed in two ways, either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress sending an amendment to the states and three-quarters of the states ratifying it, (which is how we have ratified every amendment since the Bill of Rights). The other way is to have two-thirds of the states, that is, 34 states petitioning Congress for a Constitutional Convention. When the latter is used, the entire document is taken down and re-examined.
The proponents of a con-con under the guise of a balanced budget amendment still believe that if they get another two states who call for a balanced budget amendment that they can open a convention, despite the states that have recalled their calls. Con-con supporter James Dale Davidson of the National Taxpayers’ Union even stated that he didn’t care if the con-con couldn’t be limited to the Balanced Budget. As well, Henry Hazlitt (renowned conservative) was the NTU’s economic advisor wrote a book in 1974 entitled, “A New Constitution Now.” The book is extremely alarming because in the book he says, “an amendment could be proposed that would strike out everything after ‘We the people,’ “ and that of course includes the Bill of Rights.
Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger (no friend of conservatives) vigorously opposed convening a constitutional convention. He wrote in 1988, “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “
We also have a warning directly from the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison when the states of New York and Virginia formally petitioned Congress in 1788 to call for a con-con to propose amendments to the Constitution, which had only been completed a year before. Madison wrote this letter, “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the congress…It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides…[and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts…might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric…Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America.” Just imagine a Constitutional Convention in today’s climate and sans the statesmen like our founding fathers.
I too tremble at the thought of a Constitutional Convention and unfortunately a new threat is on the horizon and comes from sources one would least expect. Judge Andrew Napolitano is often a guest on the Fox Network Glenn Beck Show. My first inkling that Judge Napolitano was pro-Constitutional Convention, was at the end of the Glenn Beck show on May 1st, 2009 when Glenn’s audience were tea party attendees from across the nation. At the end of this program, Judge Napolitano stated that we needed a Constitutional Convention to eliminate the 16th amendment (income taxes).
On April 23, 2009, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece by Professor Randy Barnett. Barnett is a law professor at Georgetown University, “The Case for a Federalism Amendment: How the Tea Partiers can make Washington Pay Attention.” Judge Napolitano has had Professor Barnett on his program several times to discuss the “necessity” for a Constitutional Convention.
At this point, one must remember that Fox News Channel is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who in May of 2007 also purchased Dow Jones who also owns The Wall Street Journal. As well, on May 8, 2006, the Financial Times reported that Murdoch would be hosting a fundraiser for Senator Hillary Clinton’s Senate reelection campaign. Murdoch also owns the New York Post and was asked in a 2008 interview with Walt Mossberg if he had anything to do with the New York Post’s endorsement of Barack Obama. Without hesitating, Murdoch replied, “Yeah. He is a rock star. It’s fantastic. I love what he is saying about education……”
On April 27th, Barnett also appeared as a guest on Michael Patrick Leahy’s show on PajamasTV. Michael Patrick Leahy is the co-founder of TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) and through his heavy participation in the Tax Day Party Website as well as being an important organizer of the Tax Day Tea Parties, supports Barnett’s Constitutional Convention project to the hilt.
Professor Barnett has made several appearances on the Glenn Beck TV show in the last several months where he has promoted his con-con project with little or NO contradiction from Beck. How can constitutionalist attorney and judge, Andrew Napolitano vigorously support Barnett’s con-con project? Once again they are using various conservative techniques to draw in the grassroots who are uneducated as to the dangers of a con-con. Judge Napolitano well knows that we don’t need a Constitutional Convention to get rid of the 16th amendment. The 18th amendment prohibition of liquor was repealed in the 21st amendment without a Constitutional Convention.
So, we have Judge Napolitano, Professor Barnett, and the push for the tea parties, organized by Michael Patrick Leahy all appearing on the Fox News Network owned by Rupert Murdoch. Unfortunately, Glenn Beck has never made his anti con-con position known on TV. However, he’s expressed strong opposition in his “Notes From Glenn” at the bottom of an article on www.glennbeck.com, “How to Curtail the Federal Beast,” by Judge Napolitano, dated May 15, 2009. Barnett and Napolitano continue their strong pitches for a con-con on Beck’s show, despite Beck’s written opposition. Glenn Beck has championed so many wonderful exposes’, we need to let him know the devastation of a con-con and his strong opposition to one should be aired on TV and radio!
Waiting in the wings is the New States Constitution the New World Order needs and wants in order to succeed with the fulfillment of their plans. The Ford and Rockefeller tax-free foundations along with others paid 25 million to draw up this new constitution beginning in 1964 at the Center for Democratic Institutions. This model constitution took 10 years to write, and is in its 35th draft, drawing on the efforts of over 100 people. In 1974 an essentially final version was quietly published in a book entitled, “The Emerging Constitution,” by Rexford G. Tugwell (Harper & Row) the man who directed the formulation of the new constitution
By Kelleigh Nelson
No comments:
Post a Comment