Image result for 2nd amendment

The reaction to the Las Vegas shooting demonstrates the dangers of an Article V Constitutional Convention to the Second Amendment’s protection of our right to keep and bear arms. With even many members of Congress who have been public champions of the Second Amendment wavering, we must ask, if you are a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, would you want to see an Article V Constitutional Convention in session during this highly-charged moment?

Almost immediately after the first media reports of the mass killings, the enemies of the Second Amendment began to use the tragic circumstances in Las Vegas to accomplish their decades-long goal of disarming Americans. Fortunately, no Constitutional Convention is in session during this media-hyped hysteria, but what if one were?

We have heard tragic stories of some poor guy who blows his own brains out, losing a game of "Russian Roulette." While pitying the poor guy, we also think, "How stupid." There was only a one-in-six chance that the gun will fire the lone bullet, but the consequences far outweigh the benefits of "winning" the game. It is simply too risky.

That is what supporters of the so-called Article V Convention are doing. Frustrated because our federal government regularly ignores the limitations of the U.S. Constitution, these advocates of invoking a national convention to propose amendments claim that the participants at the convention will meet and limit themselves to adopting a series of reforms — reforms that will put the clamps on the progressives in the three branches of our federal government and restore our constitutional republic.

Maybe, but not likely.

Actually, as in a game of Russian Roulette, the risks far outweigh any possible benefits we could hope for in a so-called Convention of the States.

Just a few months before his death, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a meeting of the Federalist Society, “A constitutional convention is a horrible idea. This is not a good century to write a constitution.”

James Madison’s contributions to the Constitution were so immense that he has been called the Father of the Constitution. And he wrote the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. In 1788, Madison weighed in heavily against having another Constitutional Convention. He said, “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 greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system.… An election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides.… [It] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of that fabric.”

In other words, we could expect some delegates to put forth popular amendments in order to get a convention, then ram through other amendments — such as perhaps the long-time left-wing goal of taking away our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two methods of proposing amendments to the Constitution, and two ways to ratify any proposed amendment. Of the 27 amendments added since 1789, all have been submitted to the states for ratification through the first method — two-thirds vote of each house of Congress. The other method — a convention called upon the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, which may propose amendments (note the plural) — has never been used.

But advocates of what they call an “Article V Convention” argue that the people will not be electing the members of the convention — state legislatures will simply appoint delegates. And that is supposed to reassure us?

Besides that, there is nothing — not one word — in the text of the Constitution that says each state legislature will elect its state's delegates. The Constitution reads, “The Congress ... on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” The only role stipulated for the state legislatures in the Constitution in the creation of the convention is to make application to Congress that such a convention be called. There is not one word about how the delegates are to be elected, how many delegates each state shall get to send to the convention, and what will be discussed once they get there. Even the “there” is not mentioned. Perhaps they would meet in Oklahoma City at IHOP, but I doubt it.

We do know that the 1787 Constitutional Convention expressly rejected the legislatures as the appointing authority for delegates to another Constitutional Convention.

Sure, the state legislatures can make certain demands in their applications, but Congress can simply ignore them. After all, if Congress and the state legislatures disagreed, who would arbitrate between them? The Supreme Court? How often has the Supreme Court sided with the states in any dispute with the federal government? We remember that Chief Justice John Roberts was very explicit that he preferred to defer to Congress — in his upholding of ObamaCare. Actually, it is probable that neither Congress nor the state legislatures could dictate the topic or topics discussed at the convention. It would most likely be the convention itself.

One supporter of a con-con tried to tell me that each state would be equally represented at the convention. Again, perhaps the framers of the Constitution thought it would be that way, but who knows? The Constitution's wording gives us no guidance at all. Do you really think the states with large populations would agree to a convention in which each state is equally represented?

Most likely, since Congress is given the power to call the convention, Congress would write the rules on how the delegates would be elected, and how many delegates each state would get to send. They might just pick the delegates themselves.

The actual amendments proposed at the convention would not be determined by either Congress or the state legislatures, but rather by the delegates themselves. It is noteworthy that in the early years of the Republic, state legislatures that made applications for a national convention did not even try to dictate the subjects to be discussed. Legislators attempting to do so are ignorant of history.

One of the most popular topics Article V Convention proponents suggest would be covered is a Balanced Budget Amendment, or BBA. Others issues come up, such as abortion or term limits. But the convention could meet, and decide they wished to do nothing and adjourn (though this is not likely). Or they could take up several topics. They might even decide to make an entirely new Constitution, more in line with progressive dogma. As former Chief Justice Warren Burger said, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention."

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was a dissenting vote in the Heller and McDonald cases. He wants the Second Amendment amended to read this way: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms WHEN SERVING IN THE MILITIA shall not be infringed.”

He is not alone in this desire to alter the meaning of the Second Amendment. At present, the enemies of the Second Amendment simply do not have the votes in Congress to send any repeal or alteration of the Second Amendment to the states for ratification. But were we to have an Article V Convention, those who oppose the Second Amendment would make every effort to include a change to it at any such convention. In fact, there are many who believe we need to make changes to the First Amendment as well. One might note that Gary Johnson, the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, even called religious liberty a “black hole.”

We have only had one such convention in American history. In 1787, the states asked Congress to call a convention “for the sole and express purpose” of considering changes to the Articles of Confederation. But once they met, the delegates determined they needed to start from scratch and construct an entirely new document. We may like the work they did in 1787, but just how many James Madisons do we have now?

The proponents of the Article V Convention brush away such concerns, contending that any bad proposed constitutional amendments to emerge from such a convention would be defeated in the ratification process. After all, it takes three-fourths of the states to ratify, or agree, to any proposed amendments. Really? Are you willing to play Russian Roulette with the Constitution?

In 1787, the Articles of Confederation provided for amendments, too. Under the Articles of Confederation, any such proposed amendments had to be approved by Congress and all 13 state legislatures. Knowing such ratification was impossible, the delegates ignored the constitutional ratification process spelled out in the Articles of Confederation, and skipped Congress. They also skipped the state legislatures, sending the document directly to state conventions! They changed the number of states needing to ratify from a unanimous 13 states to only nine states. Once nine states ratified, they said, the Constitution would go into effect in those nine states.

James Madison admitted in Article 40 of the Federalist Papers that the delegates had skirted the legal method of ratification. His argument was basically that the ends justify the means — the Constitution was so needed, it was justified to ignore the Articles of Confederation, the constitution they were then operating under. Fortunately it turned out well, but are we willing to play Russian Roulette and give a modern convention the opportunity to do what they believe is best? Maybe they would think it best to provide for a ratification of some number less than two-thirds of the states. One must understand that most people believe their way is best. Barack Obama thought his way was best.

For sake of argument, let us pretend that we have a convention, and they actually limit themselves to passing some amendment that places this or that restriction on the power of the federal government. Great. And then they send this magnificent piece of work to the state legislatures, and two-thirds pass it. We've pulled the trigger and the hammer fell on an empty chamber. We have a great new amendment to the Constitution, telling the federal government what for.

That is possible, but highly unlikely. But would it make any difference? After all, we have a Constitution right now that does not authorize most of the things Congress does. Presidents regularly ignore constitutional restrictions, boasting they have a pen and a phone. The Supreme Court finds all sorts of interesting things in the Constitution (“penumbras,” anyone?) that we all know are not in there, and we know they know are not in there, and we know they know we know are not in there. But they continue to do it. Why pass another amendment for them to ignore? As Nancy Pelosi cackled when asked if ObamaCare was constitutional, "Is that a serious question?"

The proponents of the Constitutional Convention/Article V Convention/Convention of States are essentially saying that there is something inherently wrong with our Constitution. The fault is not the Constitution, but the failure to adhere to it. The problem is that we have elected people the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and the Clintons who do not respect the Constitution. And they certainly do not favor the Second Amendment.

Why would we expect the voters to choose better people to a con-con than we send to Congress? At least we have a chance to replace members of Congress in the next election. If the Constitution is changed at a con-con dominated by progressive types, then the changes favored by their ilk will be written into the Constitution.

It is much easier to change a member of Congress, even one as powerful as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, than it is to change the Constitution. Do you really think we could add the Second Amendment back in if it were repealed or altered?

Dudley Brown, the president of the National Association for Gun Rights, said, “Anti-gun billionaire playboy Michael Bloomberg is salivating at the opportunity to use an open-ended Article V Con Con to strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights.” He predicted that powerful left-wing groups will have the financial support from Bloomberg and George Soros to win control of any such convention, and cast aside not just the Second Amendment, but the entire Constitution.

Let’s pretend that an amendment to repeal the Second came out of a convention. And, they decide to follow the “three-fourths of all Legislatures” method of amendment. Or perhaps they send it to state conventions. Are you willing to bet your Second Amendment rights that we could stop them from electing delegates to these conventions, or bribing enough state legislators to strip the Second Amendment of any meaningful protection of our right to keep and bear arms?

In 1791, the First Amendment was added to the Constitution. It stated very clearly that Congress was to “make no law” abridging either freedom of speech or the press. Seven years later, Congress passed a law — the Sedition Act — that abridged freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The Sedition Act was sent to the dustbin of history following the presidential and congressional elections of 1800. If the people want a government that is limited by the Constitution, they must use the ballot box to replace the personnel of government who disobey the Constitution.

As Congressman John Randolph of Roanoke noted, the Constitution is just parchment, unless the people hold their public officials to follow its commands.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/27067-las-vegas-reaction...

Image result for princess fiona quotes

Views: 26

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The LEFT is at it again!

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Image result for conservative political cartoons

ALERT ALERT

Hillary Clinton Was Not Formally Under
FBI Investigation At Any Time In 2015-2016

On Tuesday, Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified in a joint Congressional hearing to the House Oversight and House Judiciary panels about his review of the FBI’s (mis)handling of the Clinton email investigation.

House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) came out swinging Tuesday in a a joint hearing held by the House Oversight and House Judiciary Committees.

Gowdy ripped into Comey in his opening statement, stating, “we can’t survive with a justice system we don’t trust.”

Investigative journalist Paul Sperry reported Horowitz dropped a bombshell in his testimony.

Horowitz revealed the FBI never named a target or even a subject in the Clinton email probe!

Sperry tweeted: BREAKING: IG Horowitz revealed in Senate testimony FBI never named a target or even subject in Clinton probe. Not Mills, Abedin, Combetta or Clinton herself. “Nobody was listed as a subject of this investigation at any point in time,” adding this was “surprising” for a crim probe

Paul Sperry@paulsperry_

BREAKING: IG Horowitz revealed in Senate testimony FBI never named a target or even subject in Clinton probe. Not Mills, Abedin, Combetta or Clinton herself. "Nobody was listed as a subject of this investigation at any point in time," adding this was "surprising" for a crim probe

So neither Hillary nor her top aides were formally under investigation by the FBI at any time in 2015-2016, tweeted Sperry.

IG HOROWITZ DROPS BOMBSHELL DURING SENATE TESTIMONY:

“Nobody was listed as a subject of this [Clinton email] investigation at any point in time,” adding this was “surprising”

So neither Hillary nor her top aides were formally under investigation by FBI at any time in 2015-2016!

Paul Sperry@paulsperry_

IG HOROWITZ DROPS BOMBSHELL DURING SENATE TESTIMONY:

"Nobody was listed as a subject of this [Clinton email] investigation at any point in time," adding this was "surprising"

So neither Hillary nor her top aides were formally under investigation by FBI at any time in 2015-2016!

Paul Sperry@paulsperry_

BREAKING: Horowitz revealed that Hillary was never really under formal investigation, never listed by FBI as a "subject" of investigation.

President of Judicial Watch Tom Fitton reacted to this bombshell bias from the FBI.

Tom Fitton  @TomFitton

.@RealDonaldTrump is a subject, but Hillary Clinton was never a "subject." Outrageous. Shut the Strzok-Page-Comey-McCabe-Lynch-Yates-Glenn Simpson-Steele-Brennan-Fusion GPS-Muller special counsel "stop @realDonaldTrump" investigation down.

Paul Sperry@paulsperry_

BREAKING: IG Horowitz revealed in Senate testimony FBI never named a target or even subject in Clinton probe. Not Mills, Abedin, Combetta or Clinton herself. "Nobody was listed as a subject of this investigation at any point in time," adding this was "surprising" for a crim probe

tigation’ into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server was a complete sham.

No subjects were named, immunity was handed out like candy and Hillary was exonerated before witnesses were interviewed, including Hillary Clinton herself.

Hillary Clinton’s ‘interview’ with the FBI wasn’t even under oath.

Even more egregious, Hillary discussed pregnancy and babies during the majority of the 2.5 hour FBI interview because one of her lawyers was pregnant at the time.

Inspector General Horowitz also testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Targeting Of Tea Party Groups
John McCain’s Staff Director Urged Lois Lerner
And IRS To Engage In “Financially Ruinous”

Conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch obtained IRS documents Thursday revealing backstabber Senator John McCain’s former staff director urged the IRS, including the corrupt Lois Lerner to engage in “financially ruinous” targeting of conservative Tea Party groups.

And they did.

The IRS Conservative Targeting Scandal involved:

  • Hundreds of conservative groups were targeted
  • At least 5 pro-Israel groups
  • Constitutional groups
  • Groups that criticized Obama administration
  • At least two pro-life groups
  • An 83 year-old Nazi concentration camp survivor
  • A 180 year-old Baptist paper
  • A Texas voting-rights group
  • A Hollywood conservative group was targeted and harassed
  • Conservative activists and businesses
  • At least one conservative Hispanic group
  • IRS continued to target groups even after the scandal was exposed
  • And… 100% of the 501(c)(4) Groups Audited by IRS Were
  • Conservative

Now this…

Via Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch today released newly obtained internal IRS documents, including material revealing that Sen. John McCain’s former staff director and chief counsel on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee, Henry Kerner, urged top IRS officials, including then-director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner, to “audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous.” Kerner was appointed by President Trump as Special Counsel for the United States Office of Special Counsel.

The explosive exchange was contained in notes taken by IRS employees at an April 30, 2013, meeting between Kerner, Lerner, and other high-ranking IRS officials. Just ten days following the meeting, former IRS director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner admitted that the IRS had a policy of improperly and deliberately delaying applications for tax-exempt status from conservative non-profit groups.

Lerner and other IRS officials met with select top staffers from the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in a “marathon” meeting to discuss concerns raised by both Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that the IRS was not reining in political advocacy groups in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Senator McCain had been the chief sponsor of the McCain-Feingold Act and called the Citizens United decision, which overturned portions of the Act, one of the “worst decisions I have ever seen.”

In the full notes of an April 30 meeting, McCain’s high-ranking staffer Kerner recommends harassing non-profit groups until they are unable to continue operating. Kerner tells Lerner, Steve Miller, then chief of staff to IRS commissioner, Nikole Flax, and other IRS officials, “Maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous.” In response, Lerner responded that “it is her job to oversee it all:”

Henry Kerner asked how to get to the abuse of organizations claiming section 501 (c)(4) but designed to be primarily political. Lois Lerner said the system works, but not in real time. Henry Kerner noted that these organizations don’t disclose donors. Lois Lerner said that if they don’t meet the requirements, we can come in and revoke, but it doesn’t happen timely. Nan Marks said if the concern is that organizations engaging in this activity don’t disclose donors, then the system doesn’t work. Henry Kerner said that maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous. Nikole noted that we have budget constraints. Elise Bean suggested using the list of organizations that made independent expenditures. Lois Lerner said that it is her job to oversee it all, not just political campaign activity.

President of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton had this to say about the newly obtained IRS documents showing more proof the agency was weaponized under Obama:

“The Obama IRS scandal is bipartisan – McCain and Democrats who wanted to regulate political speech lost at the Supreme Court, so they sought to use the IRS to harass innocent Americans. The Obama IRS scandal is not over – as Judicial Watch continues to uncover smoking gun documents that raise questions about how the Obama administration weaponized the IRS, the FEC, FBI, and DOJ to target the First Amendment rights of Americans.”

Tom Fitton  @TomFitton

The Obama IRS scandal is not over – as Judicial Watch continues to uncover smoking gun documents that raise questions about how the Obama administration weaponized the IRS, the FEC, FBI, and DOJ to target the First Amendment rights of Americans.

Judicial Watch Obtains IRS Documents Revealing McCain’s Subcommittee Staff Director Urged IRS to...

McCain minority staff director Henry Kerner to IRS official Lois Lerner and other IRS officials: “the solution is to audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous” (Washington, DC) – Judicial...

judicialwatch.org

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service