“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit
or muzzle the actions of a Constitution Convention. The Convention could make
its own rules and set its own agenda. Congressmen 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 it.”
– Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren E. Burger
“Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention,
I would tremble for the result of the second.”
– James Madison, Father of the Constitution and fourth President of the United States
Tea Party Patriots and the Constitutional-Convention
Only two days after submitting my article on the Tea Parties, Part 3 and 4, I received a shocking e-mail. I immediately called a friend in Internet publishing and asked him what I should do. He said, “Write another article just on this subject.” The reason I called was because the article on the Tea Parties included an expose of Tea Party Patriots and the e-mail I received was entitled, “Tea Party Group to Convene Conference …at Harvard.” Yes, Tea Party Patriots (TPP) are going to Harvard on September 24th and 25th to discuss with legal experts the different ways to amend the Constitution and how feasible it would be to hold a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con).
According to several articles on this Conference, The Tea Party Patriots and Harvard Law School are co-sponsoring and co-hosting this event. In the Tea Party Insider, it states this is being held to address potentially changing the Constitution. There are an expected 400 attendees who will be there seeking reform on various issues and this will provide the forum for whether a Constitutional Convention should be organized.
David Segal, a former Democratic State representative from Rhode Island said that a Constitutional Convention could be just what the country needs! Segal claims that the purpose of a federal Con-Con is to give states powers to propose amendments similar to the power imparted on Congress, but the states already have that power. The states have had that power all along, it is just that they have not made use of it for so long it has atrophied. So to say they need a Con-Con for this has to be a Trojan horse for a far more nefarious plan.
In an article in The Daily, co-founder and national coordinator of TPP Mark Meckler states, “The founders included the amendment process for the states to resist federal overreach and a convention would give states the chance to exert their authority and overturn unconstitutional laws,” He said the group isn’t yet supporting the idea of a convention, but is interested in exploring it.
When TPP co-founder, Jenny Beth Martin was asked about this Con-Con Conference in an e-mail from a TPP member who had been questioned regarding same, she commented by return e-mail,
She probably does not understand that Mark is attending the ConConCon not in support or against a Constitutional Convention, but rather as information and debate on it. We are not taking a stand on a Constitutional Convention one way or other.
Mark Meckler answered another question in an e-mail,
“Tea Party Patriots is co-sponsoring this event. We will be present along with many others from the conservative movement to protect and defend the Constitution and the vision of the Founders.”
Meckler also stated in e-mail correspondence with a questioning member that the approval for attending came from State and Local Coordinators on their Monday night National calls. He said,
To make sure we are clear, TPP is not expressing an organizational opinion on the advisability of an Article V Convention (with the exception of my personal opinion that this is not the time for such a convention). We are going to Harvard to fight for the Constitution and the Framers’ intent.
Sounds good, right? But then he muddies the water….
In the next to last paragraph Meckler says,
I understand your fear of people messing with the Constitution. It is not irrational, and not wrong to feel protective of the document. But we must also remember what many of the founders and especially Thomas Jefferson said to us, ‘Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of a preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment…’ Again, he did not think it good to change them frequently or for small reason. But he would have been vehemently opposed to the idea that amendments should not be considered nor discussed openly.
Thomas Jefferson did not attend the 1787 Convention, he was the Ambassador to France at the time. He wished the Constitution had contained term limits for all politicians so they would not make it a lifelong position.
When I read these words in this forwarded e-mail I was shocked that these two leaders and their members do not understand the dangers of a Constitutional Convention, nor do they understand we do not need a Con-Con for amendments to the Constitution. In my opinion, they are either part of the “controlled” opposition or they are so ignorant of the dangers, they should never be in leadership roles.
The John Birch Society will be in attendance to present the dangers of a Constitutional Convention and what could happen to us. The JBS understands there are newly written constitutions waiting in the wings for just this opportunity. Here is a look at one of them written over a period of 10 years at a cost of $25 million by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. It is called, The New States Constitution.
It is written in an “obverse” style which means “forming a counterpart.” As an example, Article I, Section 11 states, “Education shall be provided at public expense for those who meet appropriate test of eligibility.” The “obverse” of this statement is just as important as the statement itself and means, “All education shall be at public expense.” In other words, all education will be government controlled and funded by taxpayer dollars, there will be no private schools that are not controlled by the federal government.
Section V of Article I states, “There shall be no discrimination because of race, creed, color, origin or sex.” This opens the door to pedophilia and bestiality.
Section X of Article I states, “Those who cannot contribute to the productivity shall be entitled to a share of the national product. But distribution shall be fair, and the total may not exceed the amount for this purpose held in the National Sharing Fund.” Talk about a communist government!
Of course we have allowed our country to get to a stage similar to this and we simply must force these Congressional criminals to obey the Constitution we have.
Origins of the Con-Con
Back in the early 80s, the same excuse was used then as is being used now to push for a Constitutional Convention — a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). We fought then with prayer and hard work. Unfortunately, this BBA and Con-Con rhetoric once again sounds good and seems plausible to so many of the uneducated electorate who only want to save their country from the out-of-control abusive politicians, but who are ignorant of the ramifications of such an action. Along with this danger, we must remember too, that a “false friend” is more dangerous than an open enemy.
In many of my articles I’ve exposed how the Republicans and the phony rightwing have been in bed with the left for decades. So, when I name names that are alleged conservatives, do not think for one minute they are ill informed or do not know what they’re doing.
Over the years, the pro-Con-Con lobbyists and politicians have attempted to dismiss the concerns about what they call a runaway Convention. But the above words of James Madison and Warren Burger, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was an expert Constitutional scholar, and scores of others equally qualified make it plain that opening a Con-Con is very dangerous business.
When the gavel fell on the first and only Constitutional Convention which took place in 1787, the delegates proceeded to disregard Congress’ preset agenda, a limited agenda that was given to them calling for modification only of the Articles of Confederation which were in force at that time. They threw out the Articles of Confederation, i.e. they threw out the existing government at that time, and they wrote a whole new Constitution. About 50 of the 55 delegates at that Constitutional Convention were practicing Christians, so the Constitution they wrote was rooted squarely in the Word of God and the Ten Commandments. It maximized individual liberty while at the same time limiting government power.[i]
To ensure the new Constitution was adopted, the delegates simply ignored the existing ratification rules and wrote new ones which they used to get their new Constitution ratified. It was a gift of God for sure, but there are absolutely no Constitutional guarantees that the legal precedent of the first Convention will not be repeated by the second one with the result being a new Constitution, but you can rest assured that this one will not be from Godly Christian men. Back in the early 80s, many of the states that called for a one-item Convention like the BBA and wrote limiting language into their calls (thinking they could indeed control the agenda they stated they would secede from the Convention if it overstepped the bounds) but the precedent of the first Convention is the basis for American jurisprudence.[ii]
A Con-Con is not just the amendment that is at issue. The entire document is taken down from its pedestal and is put on the table and people go to work on it, tearing it apart. We no longer have statesmen like our founders. Can you imagine the delegates from each state and those who would work on our law-of-the-land document today?
Who is Behind the Con-Con Push
The Constitution has been a target from its very inception. In the mid 1800s, the American Fabian Society wrote in its journal that the Constitution was too highly individualist to allow for the gradual implementation of socialism. In the 1950s, the World Constitution and Parliamentary Association was calling for a world constitutional convention. They’ve been at it ever since and one of the Constitutions slated for inclusion in the Convention is theirs and it would help introduce a world constitution.
Henry Hazlitt, formerly the economic advisor to pro Constitutional Convention James Dale Davidson’s National Taxpayer’s Union, was a renowned conservative and he wrote a book which he republished in 1974 called, A New Constitution Now. This book is extremely dangerous inasmuch as Davidson states things like, “an amendment could be proposed that would strike out everything after “We the people,” and that of course includes the Bill of Rights. He was of course suggesting that everything after “We the people” on down be scrapped and rewritten, which is amazing as this document has provided more human dignity and freedom for more people than any other in recorded history.[iii]
The one purpose of the Con-Con is to eliminate the allegiance of this nation to God, family and country. To do that, the elimination of inalienable, permanent rights from God must happen.
James Dale Davidson has been at the forefront in pushing for a Con-Con for decades and used to give $100,000 per year towards that cause. He was also one of the initial board members on Newsmax along with CFR members Alexander Haig and Arnaud de Borchgrave. Newsmax is Christopher Ruddy’s organization and was funded by Richard Mellon Scaife who funds both sides of the aisle much like the Koch brothers and Soros. Scaife is pro-abortion and strongly believes in taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.
In 1980, the committee on the constitutional System (the CCS) came together in D.C. It was comprised of globalists, internationalists and career politicians. The CCS was founded by members of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission (TC) and funded by Ford, Rockefeller, American Express and Hewlett Foundations Their directors were nearly all CFR and TC members. Those involved included former Attorney General Thornburgh, former Secretary of the Treasury Brady, sitting Senators like Kassebaum, Moynihan and Hollings, and the wealthy and influential Robert McNamara, William Fulbright, and Douglas Dillon, among others.
Career elitist politicians from both the Republican and Democrat camps have been strong proponents of a Con-Con, including 3rd party advocates like Ross Perot (CFR), President Clinton (CFR), President G.H.W. Bush. Today of course the majority of both parties would love a Con-Con. The State Legislative Lobbyists are some of the worst however and this includes the rightwing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) who has been pushing a Con-Con for decades. Part 4 of The Phony Right Wing speaks to the efforts of ALEC and their corporate members wishing to rewrite the Constitution.
All of the One-Worlders want and need a Constitutional Convention despite taking an oath to uphold the original document. The majority are CFR members, globalists, New World Order planners, Trilateralists, Order of Skull and Bones, Transnationalists, Bilderbergers, Geopoliticians, Club of Rome, and Bohemian Club Members.[iv] Other partners are the likes of Judge Anthony Napolitano who started pushing a Con-Con on the Glenn Beck show May 1, 2009, after the very first Tea Party on April 15th, 2009.
The attack on our Constitution has never come from some fringe element, but from powerful and ostensibly upstanding people on both the right and the left. Nearly always those in the “white hats” or “our guys” are the ones pushing a Con-Con to the conservatives and making it sound oh-so-wonderful to the electorate, who have not a clue of the protections from government which the Constitution gives them.[v]
What is Required to Add an Amendment
An amendment to the constitution is first proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Constitutional Convention. This is the way we’ve ratified amendments since the Bill of Rights. It is then sent to the states for their votes. If 38 of the states ratify the amendment, it will be added to the Constitution.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 states). When the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed. Link
The other way is to have two-thirds of the states, that is thirty-four states of our fifty states petitioning Congress for a Constitutional Convention. With an amendment, the only thing that is examined, dissected, reviewed, and surgically changed is the amendment itself. But a Constitutional Convention is not just the amendment that is at issue. The whole document is taken down from its pedestal and is put on the table and the people go to work on it. This is fertile ground for someone to step in and say, “Here is a new, modern Constitution which has been developed by the great brains of the world today.” These are not statesmen with the God given rights of the people in their hearts and minds, but globalists and internationalists seeking to control every single breath we take and dying when they deem it necessary.[vi]
Today’s Balanced Budget Amendment Ruse
Today’s Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) is a hoax and a huge trap. Again, the politicians are selling this to the people because it has such a great sounding name, just like it did a couple decades ago when we fought the push for a Con-Con then. The problem with this Amendment (which quite obviously all 47 Republican Senators and most of the Republican Representatives don’t understand because they never read the Constitution) is that the Constitutionlimits what the federal government is allowed to spend with taxpayer dollars. It is so limited that the funding of outrageous items today would fill an encyclopedia.
Our Constitution does not authorize foreign aid, or museums about rock stars, or studying of the blue lizard, or Chinese prostitutes, or unconstitutional wars, etc. ad nauseum. We have a majority of Republicans in congress today… so why in heaven’s name aren’t they balancing the budget now without an amendment?
This BBA that all these folks absolutely love and want passed and talk so openly about, to the dumbed down electorate would actually legalize constitutionally illegal spending, and give them a free hand to spend whatever they want to on any frivolous item that floats past their desks. The Constitution limits Congress alone to the spending of money!
The BBA will usher in a totalitarian dictatorship. Pursuant to the unconstitutional Budget Act of 1921, the President has been preparing the budget. Since the Budget Act is unconstitutional, the President’s preparation of the budget has been likewise unconstitutional. Section 3 of the BBA would legalize what is now unconstitutional and unlawful. But Section 3 of the BBA does more than merely legalize the unlawful. It actually transfers the Constitutional power to make the appropriations and to determine taxes to the President. Congress will become a rubber stamp.
Please read Publius Huldah’s, “Why the BBA is a Hoax” on this diabolical change to our constitution planned by the right-wing who have long been in bed with the left. Senators Jim DeMint and Mike Lee (neo-cons) are determined to jam this down our throats along with Congressional creatures like Michelle Bachmann. Do not tell me they don’t understand fully what they are doing, because nearly every one of these people are lawyers and they have certainly studied the law. In the July 7, 2011, Wall Street Journal, Jim DeMint joined with that bastion of conservative politics, Olympia Snowe of Maine to push the BBA stating it is “The Only Reform That Will Restrain Spending.” Liars and thieves!
Another huge danger with this proposed BBA is the Constitutional Convention. Those of us who have written about the Con-Con call have grave concerns that this BBA could easily turn into an Article V convention. Should the BBA fail to get 38 or three-fourths of the states to ratify, the Republicans (who seem to be pushing this for both parties) could easily tell the electorate they can’t get the Democrats to go along with balancing the budget, so we need to get these same states to put out a call for a Constitutional Convention where we can open the constitution for one reason only and that is to balance the budget. They need only two-thirds or 34 states to put out a call for a Constitutional Convention, to open one.
I wrote about this in detail in my article, Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing? and Tom DeWeese of American Policy Center has written about it extensively, as has the John Birch Society, and Bernadine Smith of the Second Amendment Committee, as well as many others.
Hard work and a great deal of prayer went into fighting off the first big call for a Constitutional Convention, when we came within two states of seeing it happen. The effort has regained new speed with a new generation that knows nothing of the dangers of a Con-Con, nor the history of our founders and the document itself.
I pray people will come to the realization that our freedoms are disappearing at a rapid rate by degrees every single day and will wake up in time to save the one protection we have left. We need to be forceful and vigilant in demanding our representatives obey their oaths of office to the Constitution, rather than allowing them to rewrite the very document that is our last protection against total annihilation of our God given, unalienable rights. It is only the voices of the people, the grass roots, with everything to lose, who can stop this. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
[i] Constitution in Crisis, Kenneth C. Hill and Joan Collins
[ii] ibid, page 12
[iii] ibid, page 13
[iv] ibid, page 30
[v] ibid, page 13
[vi] ibid, page 17
Kelleigh Nelson has been a sentinel researching the Christian right and operations designed to co-opt it, since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She and her husband live in Knoxville, TN, and she has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Prior to moving to Tennessee, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company in Ohio. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots. E-Mail: email@example.com
Graphics added by Gulag Bound