Emergency call to action!!!

[HairyEyeball]

We are about to be in a world of $#!+.

Not content with ignoring, 'interpreting' and rewriting the Constitution, there are those who desire to completely eliminate and replace it. Given the political climate, one that would elect a raving socialist whose 'qualifications' are questionable in all areas, this would effectively and irrevocably destroy the nation.

The quoted email explains it, and for the record, I know and have worked with AZ State Senator Karen Johnson, and trust her implicitly. I know and have worked with Ken Rineer in Second Amendment causes and have every confidence in him.

[quote]
IMMEDIATE ACTION ALERT
Gun Owners of Arizona
Ken Rineer, President
P.O. Box 18640
Tucson, Arizona 85731-8640


I know this is last minute; however, this is too important to not put out!

I received an email alert from Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson (see
below) about Ohio holding a hearing in the Ohio House Judiciary committee to
pass/fail Ohio HJR 8, which is a call for a constitutional convention by the
State of Ohio.. Our country cannot withstand a con-con and we would all be
in, well, you know what, if the con-con call requirements were met and one
was held.

I do not know if there is much we can do from out-of-state; however, this is
such a great threat that I think an effort should at least be made.

The link to the resolution is below.

The Judiciary committee was supposed to hear it today, but their website has
not been updated with the status as of yet, so I do not know the outcome of
today's hearing.

Note: Arizona rescinded its call for a Constitutional Convention in 2003.

Here's a link to the bill for the rescission of Arizona's call:

Bill History:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/46leg/1r/bills/scr102
2o.asp

Bill Text:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/46leg/1r/bills/scr102
2s.htm

In liberty,

Ken Rineer

Here is the link:

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=127_HJR_8


Senator Karen Johnson's email:

URGENT ACTION ALERT!!

The Ohio state legislature is possibly going to vote this afternoon on a
resolution calling for a national constitutional convention. Only two more
states are needed. We do NOT want to have a constitutional convention they
could scrap our entire U.S. Constitution with the Bill of Rights and start
over!! There is more detailed explanation below from Tom DeWeese at the
American Policy Center, but I am asking everyone to make two phone calls:
ACTION TO TAKE

We need only stop the House bill, HJR8, sponsored by Representative Louis
Blessing, chairman of the Ohio House Judiciary Committee (there is a Senate
bill too).

1. Call Chairman Blessing's office and tell his staff you oppose a
Constitutional Convention and you want this process stopped.

Tell them this is the most dangerous time ever to call for such a
convention.

Tell them no one can control the debate or outcome of a Con Con.

Representative Louis Blessing
Phone: (614) 466-9091
Fax: (614) 719-3583
Email: district29@ohr.state.oh.us

2. Call Representative Bill Batchelder. He is a very good man. I've known
him for years. But he has been misled on this issue. The word is he is
wavering. Your calls can convince him to withdraw his support. That can kill
this bill.

Representative Bill Batchelder
Phone: (614) 466-8140
Fax: (614) 719-3969
Email: district69@ohr.state.oh.us

Thanks for making these phone calls! Also, please send this email to
everyone you know in every state. This vote affects everyone in the
country, so you have a vested interest in the outcome. If you can't get
through on the phone, keep trying and send an email while you're waiting!
Senator Karen S. Johnson

From: American Policy Center
Subject: SLEDGEHAMMER: URGENT ACTION NEEDED - 2 States Away from
Constitutional Convention
Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2008, 12:50 PM APC SLEDGEHAMMER ACTION ALERT
> From the American Policy Center
Tom DeWeese - President
70 Main Street, Suite 23
Warrenton, VA 20186
www.americanpolicy.org
Extremely Urgent Action Alert!
U.S. Two States Away from Constitutional Convention


This is the most urgent, most important action alert the American Policy
Center has ever issued! The Ohio state legislature is expected to vote
today, Wednesday, Dec. 10th, to call for a Constitutional Convention (Con
Con). If Ohio calls for a Con Con only one more state need do so and
Congress will have no choice but to convene a Convention, throwing our U.S.
Constitution and Bill of Rights up for grabs. Ohio's vote today poses a
grave threat to the U.S. Constitution. Please immediately call the Ohio
lawmakers listed below. ACT FAST - time is of the essence!

I apologize! This malignancy most foul remained undetected by our radar
until a good friend brought it to our attention yesterday. The hour is late,
but WE MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION!

It does not matter where you live. Ohio's vote today endangers everyone in
every state in the Union, so we must pressure Ohio lawmakers to discard this
disastrous legislative effort.

Thirty-two (32) other states have already called for a Con Con (allegedly to
add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution). 34 states are all that
is required, and then Congress MUST convene a Convention.

The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the
states can call for a Convention. If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for
whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total
destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all
She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our
Constitution. We dare slumber no longer; we must take immediate action to
preserve this nation!

Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced
budget. But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of
government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution; one that
would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real
money or even eliminate gun or property rights. So what may look like a good
idea to the legislators driving this effort - all Republicans - will
certainly make them prey to the law of unintended consequences - at the very
least insuring the U.S. will never have a balanced budget - while destroying
what vestiges of liberty the government still allows.

You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their
calls. This is true. However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress
must call a Constitutional Convention whenever 2/3 (or 34) of the states
apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission. We've been told
advocates of the convention are waiting to capture just two more states -
Ohio, and one other. They can then challenge the other states' rescissions
in the courts while going ahead with the Convention. Congress alone then
decides whether state legislatures or state conventions ratify proposed
amendments.

You may have heard the states can control the subject of any convention. In
truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or
outcome of a Convention! Once a Convention is called Congress determines how
the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention
delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself; if it were not
so they would not be able to change the U.S. Constitution!

We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787. That Convention was
called to make small changes in the Articles of Confederation. As a point of
fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates
discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY, forbidding even discussion of
foundational changes . However, following the delegates' first agreement
that their meetings be in secret, their second act was to agree to debate
those state restrictions and to declare the Articles of Confederation NULL
AND VOID! They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required
states' approval from 100% to 75%. There is no reason to believe a
contemporary Con Con wouldn't further "modify" Article V restrictions to
suit its purpose.

As former Chief Justice Warren Burger said in a letter written to Phyllis
Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum:
"...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 its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the
limit placed by the confederation Congress..." (emphasis mine)

We were blessed in 1787; the Con Con delegates were the leaders of a freedom
movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny.

Today's corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the
ability to legally ignore the Constitution - to modify its "problematic"
provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our
contemporary society.

The majority of U.S. voters just elected a dedicated leftist as President.
Republicans are at their weakest right now! This is a horrible time to try
such a crazy scheme. We cannot control the debate right now! Don't for one
second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the 1st Amendment
into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a
"collective" right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th
Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights. Additions could include the
non-existent Separation of Church and State, the "right" to abortion and
euthanasia, and much, much more.

continued:

[HairyEyeball]

Our uniquely and purely American concept of individual rights, endowed by
our Creator, would be quickly set aside as an anachronistic relic of a
bygone era; replaced by new "collective" rights, awarded and enforced by
government for the "common good".

The problems our nation faces are not a result of deficiencies in our
Constitution; rather, they are the direct result of our disregard for that
divinely-inspired document of liberty.

There is no challenge faced by this nation that cannot be solved either by
enforcing existing law, or in limited cases, by writing new law. We do not
need, AND MUST NOT RISK THE LIBERTY OF THE UNITED STATES with, a
Constitutional Convention!

Ohio must not vote for a Con Con! We cannot control the debate! And state
#34 is likely sitting silently in the wings, ready to act with lightning
speed, sealing the fate of our once great nation before we can prevent it.

Stop the Ohio bill and we can stop the Constitutional Convention.

ACTION TO TAKE

We need only stop the House bill, HJR8, sponsored by Representative Louis
Blessing, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (there is a Senate bill
too).

1. Call Chairman Blessing's office and tell his staff you oppose a
Constitutional Convention and you want this process stopped.

Tell them this is the most dangerous time ever to call for such a
convention.

Tell them no one can control the debate or outcome of a Con Con.

Representative Louis Blessing
Phone: (614) 466-9091
Fax: (614) 719-3583
Email: district29@ohr.state.oh.us

2. Call Representative Bill Batchelder. He is a very good man. I've known
him for y ears. But he has been misled on this issue. The word is he is
wavering. Your calls can convince him to withdraw his support. That can kill
this bill.

Representative Bill Batchelder
Phone: (614) 466-8140
Fax: (614) 719-3969
Email: district69@ohr.state.oh.us

3. It is URGENT that you make your calls right now. The bill could be voted
on as early as this afternoon (Wednesday).

I'm so sorry for this late notice. We just found out about this last night.

Please get this message out far and wide. This task requires our very best
effort! E-mail and call your friends, family and neighbors. Network anywhere
and everywhere possible. If you know someone who never takes action,
encourage them to break that habit this one time. Our Constitution is under
assault!

Visit the American Policy Center website SEND THIS MESSAGE TO AT LEAST TEN
MORE PEOPLE! APC is now offering you a quick and easy way to multiply your
efforts and help win more battles! Simply click here to send this APC Action
Alert to up to TEN of your friends! It's fast, it's easy and most of all,
it's extremely effective in KILLING OPPRESSIVE POLICIES!
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message
with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following
link: Unsubscribe American Policy Center 70 Main Street Suite 23 Warrenton,
Virginia 20186
[/quote]

...damned character limits...

[wukong]

Why stop it. A convention could also improve things like a coherent tax plan. Fix an out of control congress. Actual make the Bill of Rights coherent.

[03_SHOOTER]

If, and I use the word advisedly, the Constitutional Convention is being called strictly for the purpose as defined in H.J.R. No. 8 (a Balanced Budget Amendment), AND if, and again I use the word advisedly, all of the other States have similar verbiage disallowing them from discussing or voting on any other proposals than the specified Balanced Budget Amendment, I see no reason to impede it.

However, as we have all seen too many times in the past, by the time any proposed legislation does pass through the process, it usually includes the phrase "...and for other purposes", and THAT is the troubling part, since at this point in time we have no way of knowing exactly which other States are considering joining in this proposed Constitutional Convention, nor the specific verbiage each of their particular proposed legislations may contain.

For my part, I will endeavor to effort out the specific States that are considering joining the proposed Convention, and the text of their proposed legislation. If I am able to locate any other them, I will post them here for everyones consideration.

[03_SHOOTER]

OK, thus far I have been able to locate sources that list the following States as having called for Con-Con for a Balanced Budget Amendment;


Alaska
Arkansas
Delaware
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Wyoming

The following States had originally supported it, but have since rescinded their support;


Alabama
Arizona
Florida
Louisiana
Nevada

[HairyEyeball]

Why stop it. A convention could also improve things like a coherent tax plan. Fix an out of control congress. Actual make the Bill of Rights coherent.

In theory it could, but I doubt you or any other rational individual believes it would. Given the blatant disregard for the Constitution as it stands for the better part of the last century, and the election of a raving socialist on nothing more concrete than oratory and media hype, I would - and I mean this literally - stake my life on any such ConCon producing a statist document that would horrify even the most ardent Federalists of the Constitutional Era, and literally rewrite the Bill of Rights into a 'list of permissions' with specific government 'oversight' - and subject the few remaining items the individual States may have some vestigal control over to similar central control.

Given my primary areas of interest, I believe that any such 'new Constitution' would give us the same 'freedom of speech' that Germans had in 1936 to praise Hitler on any street corner, or Russians had to extol Stalin in 1940, and any firearm in the hands of the civilian populace would be grounds for classifying him as an 'enemy of the State'. Obviously, YMMV, but - back to history - every 'modification' or 'interpretation' of the Constitution has resulted in less liberty, not more; broader power to the central government at the cost of that intended to the States and to the people. There is no reason to believe scrapping what's left of it and producing a 'new' one would do anything but irrevocably codify the total supremacy of the 'imperial state'.

[TruBlu]

Hairy, the links in the email aren't working because they are broken by two lines. We can still copy and paste using both lines, but you can't directly click and go.

I'm going to do a little more research on this myself before I make my comments and post my thoughts though.

[HairyEyeball]

"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

As I have pointed out repeatedly, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was convened for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. It did not 'amend', 'clarify' or 'modify' them, it completely supplanted them, creating a central governing body which drew its power from that formerly held by the joint and several States, and has continually grown - in size and power - by usurping an ever-increasing level of those 'States Rights', and illegally and arbitrarily curtailing the supposedly 'guaranteed' rights of its citizens.

If there is any rational basis for a presumption that any putative Constitution to emerge from a Second Constitutional Convention would not permanently codify the powers of the central government as greater than those it has arbitrarily seized, would not establish a statist system under which the government is the ultimate arbiter of what is 'safe' for its subjects, what is 'best' for its subjects, and what 'privileges' its subjects may or may not be 'allowed' - at whim with no justification beyond 'it's the law' - it has not yet seen the light of day...nor would it withstand the light of truth.

[03_SHOOTER]

On that very subject, while listening to the radio today I heard some discussion on the Con-Con, and several of the States are proposing, aside from a Balanced Budget Amendment, the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments, which would essentially turn back the clock to a time when the States really did have some say in how the government was run, and to deal with all of the run-away spending that Congress has engaged in over the past 70+ years that has all but bankrupted the nation, and saddled our Great-Great-Grandchildren with a debt that they'll never see an end of.

As Hairy noted, it is entirely possible that a Con-Con could result in a complete re-write of the Constitution, and the fact is that even if they do, there's little/nothing that we can do about it anyway except 1) repeat the efforts of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists by writing about it (not that anyone will pay any attention to it anyway unless they already agree with what we're writing), and 2) hunker down, lock and load, and get ready for the sh*t storm that will follow.

Best case scenerio is that they'll be successful in getting the country back on track. Worst case scenerio...well, Jefferson did say that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants...".

[TruBlu]

So what's the status on this guys? Any new and interesting developments. I would think a topic like this would get some news attention, but I haven't seen anything about it. I know a con-con hasn't been called, that would surly be news, but have other states rescinded or joined? Did the legislature even pass in Ohio? This just seemed to go dead all of a sudden.

And after my short research, here's my thoughts: I don't believe that a new Constitution would come of a con-con. I say this because of simple statistics: It takes 2/3 to call, and 3/4 to ratify. There is still approximately an 8 to 9 percent difference between the two, and 8 or 9 percent that may have not called for the convention in the first place. So, would a new amendment for federal budget balancing be good for us? I believe so. Would other amendments come up for debate? Probably more than likely. Would a new Constitution arise? Doubtfully, in my opinion.

[HairyEyeball]

I’m sure your Constitutional expertise is at least as thorough and detailed as your research must have been in failing to find:

[quote]
GRASSROOTS ACTIVISTS DERAIL OHIO CON-CON RESOLUTION
By news writer Sarah Foster
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
December 15, 2008
© NewsWithViews.com
COLUMBUS, Ohio — An attempt by GOP lawmakers to sneak a resolution through the state legislature last week calling for a constitutional convention – or “con con” -- was halted, at least until next year, by a hastily assembled coalition of grassroots activists who lobbied representatives at the state capitol and testified against the controversial measure during its committee hearing Wednesday.
“I believe it was God’s blessing that we found out about it and were able to organize quickly and put a stop to it being voted on today by the committee and the House. It was moving very quickly,” activist Teri Owens told NewsWithViews that evening.
“We seem to have put a kink in their plans because this had been introduced very quietly and we almost missed it,” she said. “We had no idea this was coming down the pike.”
Rep. Matt Huffman, a Republican first-term member of the House of Representatives, the General Assembly’s lower chamber, waited until Dec. 3 to introduce House Joint Resolution 8, which if passed by both houses would make Ohio the 33rd state to petition Congress to call a constitutional convention. Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, when the legislatures of two-thirds (34) of the states have passed a petitioning resolution, Congress is mandated to convene a convention.
Fourteen Republican legislators signed on as cosponsors but no Democrats.
On Dec. 9, the day before the hearing for HJR 8, Sen. Keith Faber (R), introduced its companion bill, Senate Joint Resolution 9, in the State Senate.
As with similar resolutions introduced over the years in Ohio and other states, HJR 8 and SJR 9 limit discussion and consideration to one amendment (in this instance, a Balanced Budget Amendment) to the Constitution, and Ohio delegates would be bound not to address or vote on any other issue that might be introduced.

“Russian Roulette with the Constitution”

Calling a constitutional convention has been a hot-button issue for over three decades. Although it is one of two methods Article V of the Constitution provides for amendment, it has never been used. The danger in holding a con con, according to most legal scholars, is that once the delegates are assembled there is no way to limit debate to one topic, and it is possible that an entirely new Constitution could be introduced and ratified.
As former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in 1983, in an oft-quoted letter to Phyllis Schafly, president of Eagle Forum:
“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 its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ …
“A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention.”
Which is why Schafly characterized a con con as “playing Russian roulette with the Constitution.”
And it is why national organizations across the political spectrum have opposed calling one. These include the John Birch Society, Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, Daughters of the American Revolution, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way.
They’ve been largely successful. Following an initial spate of approvals during the 1970s, during which some 30 states passed con-con resolutions, no state has followed their lead since 1983, though numerous attempts have been made. Several states have rescinded their resolutions, but it is questionable that Congress will acknowledge these rescissions.
HJR 8 brings the con-con issue back into public debate.
A Slam-Dunk Passage
The plan apparently was for the committee to hear the bill (with no adverse testimony allowed), vote in its favor, and send it straight to the floor of the House for a slam-dunk passage. They had good reason for confidence. HJR 8’s introduction this late in the session meant that likely opponents wouldn’t be aware of it until it was signed into law. Moreover, the measure was assigned to the 11-member Judiciary Committee, comprised of five Democrats and six Republicans, four of whom were cosponsors.
Although Democrats took the House in the Nov. 4 election, it remains under Republican control until Jan. 3, essentially guaranteeing HJR 8’s passage if it was waved through committee. The GOP still holds the Senate by a commanding majority.
To top it off, the Judiciary Committee is chaired by Rep. Louis Blessing, a Republican who’s been with the Ohio Legislature – either in the Senate or House – for 25 years. Though not a cosponsor of HJR 8, back in 1987 Blessing had cosponsored a similar resolution, which was defeated.
“He’s a 20-year champion for getting a con-con through,” Teri Owens observed.

Wednesday’s scenario didn’t happen as planned, but only because the Institute for Principled Policy, an Ohio-based think tank, learned of it the Friday before the scheduled hearing – wrote up an incisive analysis with what-to-do instructions and posted these on the Internet. In its analysis the IPP warned:
“Kiss the second amendment goodbye, in favor of a ‘collective’ right to self-defense, meaning no private ownership of firearms or other weapons. Only police and armed forces (not to mention criminals) will have guns. Kiss the much battered and abused 4th and 5th amendments goodbye. Watch for the 1st Amendment to be ‘revised’ into a meaningless jumble of verbiage which any court can feel free to misconstrue at will. The same for the rest of the Bill of Rights.
"State sovereignty as guaranteed in the 9th and 10th Amendments and Article IV of the Constitution? An archaic idea whose time has passed in a modern world. It will be chucked in favor of wording which would allow easy melding of the United States of America with its northern and southern neighbors into a United States of North and South America as part of a regional world governance scheme under the UN.”
The news was picked up by the umbrella group Ohio Freedom Alliance and handed along to activists nationwide in a cyberspace tag-team.
Critics faced a major hurdle: no testimony would be allowed at the hearing. Ohioans and constitutionalists from around the country flooded the offices of committee members and other lawmakers with a phone calls and e-mails. It was apparently this massive outpouring of state and national indignation that persuaded Blessing to change his mind, though he has not admitted this. Whatever the reason, the chairman agreed to permit testimony.
Teri Owens shared details of the hearing with NewsWithViews.com.
On Wednesday, a total of 10 speakers representing the Institute for Principled Policy, the Ohio Freedom Alliance, the Libertarian Party of Ohio, the Constitution Party of Ohio, the John Birch Society, Campaign for Liberty, and We Are Change Ohio were able to address the issue and answer questions. Of those 10, perhaps one had ever testified before a committee.
“Most of us were frightened, but we knew we didn’t have a choice,” said Owens. “It was something we had to do.”
Rep. Huffman, who authored HJR 8, presented the only testimony in its favor. Owens said that during his remarks he turned to face their group, telling them that he “knew” that those in opposition were there “out of fear” – that opponents of the con-con are “just fearful of what’s going to happen.”
“So we impressed on the committee that it was not about fear, but about wisdom,” Owens said. “We laid out every objection that there is to a con-con.”

(continued)

[HairyEyeball]

(damned character limit)

NOTE: Their testimony is transcribed and posted – with some videos -- on the Institute for Principled Policy’s website and the website for PeaceChicken.com.
Their work paid off. The committee did not take a vote on Wednesday and the latest word is that it will not do so at this time. Its companion SJR9 will not be heard in committee. So it appears the con con is dead for this session – but it will definitely be reintroduced next year. Moreover, a staff member in Blessing’s office told NewsWithViews that the chairman can call the committee for an emergency session at any time – and a vote could then be taken.
Barry Sheets of IPP warns, “Anything can happen until the General Assembly adjourns sine die , which may be held off until the very end of the year given the instability of the state’s budget. They may, or the governor could, call an emergency session to deal with issues, so we need to stay on guard until that last gavel drops on the 127th General Assembly.”
A Con Con to Kill the Constitution
In February, NWV columnist Jon Ryter posed the question Could the 2008 Election Bring the End of America as We Know It?, and stated that the new president, whoever that would be, had been tasked with abolishing the economic sovereignty of the United States.
“Hemispheric government -- through the merging of Canada and Mexico with the United States, followed by the inclusion of Central and then South America into what will be called the American Union with the absolute loss of national sovereignty—is just around the corner,” Ryter predicted.
Ryter further predicted that citizen groups will push for a constitutional convention in an attempt to head this off, with the argument advanced that this is the only way to thwart the Council on Foreign Relation’s plan to formalize the North American Union.

“With globalist McCain, Clinton or Obama in the White House, the argument will appear to contain enough truth that it will draw supporters like metal shaving to a magnet,” Ryter declared. “In addition, proponents of the Convention will argue that only a constitutional amendment will force the federal government to deport all illegal aliens. Again, it will sound logical.”
Earlier Story:
1. Jon Christian Ryter: Could the 2008 Election Bring the End of America as We Know It? Feb. 2, 2008
Additional Reading:
1. Institute for Principled Policy: Sowing the Wind -- Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5
2. For Updates: www.peacechicken.com and American Policy Center
3. Phyllis Schlafly: Playing Russian Roulette with the Constitution, Dec. 1984
4. Phyllis Schlafly: Combating Chicanery about the Constitution, Sept. 1987
5. Phyllis Schafly: Is a Con Con Hidden in Term Limits? May 1996
Video:
Beware Article V:Message to State Legislatures -- Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
© 2008 NWV - All Rights Reserved
[/quote]

You appear to have overlooked a few [I]minor points: To cite just two, the First Constitutional Convention was called to modify the Articles of Confederation, and resulted in discarding them in favor of a 'strong' central government - grown into the current monolith. A 'Constitutional Convention' is not necessary to propose Amendments - see Article V.

If you are going to offer an 'opinion', at least put in the effort to do more than 'short' research: If you don't care enough to dig for facts to support it, what makes you think that anyone else would grant it credence?

[TruBlu]

shall call a convention for proposing amendments

Could you please then clarify this section for me (pulled from Article V)? The Constitution, at least to my understanding (perhaps lack there of), states that a convention is to be called for proposing amendments. So is a con-con different than any other convention? Maybe that's where the discrepancy lies... But who is to say that said convention to be called would not be a con-con?

[HairyEyeball]

I realize they don't teach semantics anymore, but 'a convention for proposing amendments' does not have the same meaning as 'Constitutional Convention'. Additionally, a little research might enlighten you as to just how many of Amendments XI to XXVII were generated by a convention.