[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Another Endorsement of a Constitutional Convention on Glenn Beck Written by Larry Greenley Thursday, 12 November 2009 15:24 In light of the John Birch Society's strenuous and successful campaign over the past 25 years or so to prevent the calling of a constitutional convention (con-con) as provided for in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, it was very disappointing to see a well-known constitutional scholar, Professor Kevin Gutzman, promote the concept on the Glenn Beck TV Show on Tuesday, November 10 (see embedded video below). Judge Andrew Napolitano was the substitute host due to Beck's appendicitis operation. As documented in my article, "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention," posted on TheNewAmerican.com on June 23, both Professor Randy Barnett and Judge Napolitano had endorsed the idea of a constitutional convention on the Beck show earlier this year. To give you some of the context for why I say it was disappointing to hear Professor Gutzman recommend a con-con, here's an excerpt from "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention": Although attempting to get the federal government back under control by amending the Constitution is very appealing to many conservatives and constitutionalists, it does not address the primary problem. The primary problem is that the three branches of the federal government do not adhere to the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders. Surprisingly, this indifference to the Constitution began with some of the decisions of Chief Justice John Marshall nearly 200 years ago. Over the years this indifference has grown slowly, but with the advent of the Obama presidential administration combined with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, we’re now witnessing almost daily naked displays of raw, unconstitutional usurpations of power by the federal government with regard to states, businesses, and individuals. In this environment, simply amending the Constitution would not be sufficient to get the government back under control. However, there are numerous individuals and groups that still advocate constitutional amendments as the solution.... In a nutshell, the argument against calling for a constitutional convention is that once convened, such a convention would be free to consider and propose whatever amendments to the Constitution that it deemed beneficial. Which is to say that such a convention could become a “runaway convention” in much the same way that the Constitutional Convention that produced our current U.S. Constitution was a runaway convention that disregarded the guidelines under which it was convened. While most Americans are very thankful for the Constitution produced by our original Constitutional Convention in 1787, most Americans and certainly most state legislators, when fully informed of the downsides involved, oppose the convening of a new constitutional convention in our day. (For a video presentation of the arguments against a con-con, see the 36-minute “Beware of Article V” video on YouTube.com or BirchTube on JBS.org.) Warren Burger, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, argued along the same lines when he vigorously opposed convening a constitutional convention in a letter he wrote to Phyllis Schlafley of Eagle Forum on June 22, 1988: Here's the video of Professor Gutzman on the Glenn Beck TV Show on November 10: After watching the video above of Professor Gutzman's recommendation for calling a constitutional convention, be sure to watch "Beware Article V," an excellent video produced by the John Birch Society in 1999 and embedded below that exposes the downsides of calling a constitutional convention. If you agree that calling a constitutional convention would be too risky in the present political environment, then you should be contacting your state legislators to be sure that they don't succumb to any new movement to have state legislatures petition Congress to call a con-con. To understand the complicated situation of just how many states would be required to trigger a con-con, read "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention." Your best educational tools for convincing your state legislators to oppose a con-con are the "Beware Article V" video above (also available on DVD) and a reprint of "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: farmfriend (#0)
I agree that a Constitutional Convention could be dangerous. ------- |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||