What matters most to Idaho legislators’ constituents is that they honor their oath of office and uphold the Constitution. Our decline in recent years is solely because our elected representatives have been violating that very oath they swore to uphold by not following the Constitution and our laws.
The most important action they might ever undertake is probably going to come down to a single most important decision about the Con-Con ‘cons’ and reality. If ever there was a vote for which they will not be forgiven should they vote wrong, this is absolutely it! It is imperative that they differentiate absolute facts from assertions and hype.
We all agree the federal government is out of compliance with the Constitution. We disagree that the solution is to change the Constitution.
Do they really believe all these different drives for whatever kind of and name convention that would follow Article V rules are just coincidental? They should know some serious facts before they vote.
REALITY & THE CON-CON ‘CON’
- Why should anyone believe new amendments will be followed any more than current law? It’s illogical to think that adding or changing rules will compel chronic rule-breakers to follow new rules. What are we going to say, “We really mean it this time?”
- Something ignored by proponents is the actual text of Article V: the only power guaranteed to state legislatures is applying. If 2/3 apply, Congress calls the convention; the convention proposes amendments (plural). It doesn’t say state applications set the convention agenda or even that states will select the delegates, but proponents claim states will control the whole process. Congress disagrees because that’s obviously not what Article V says. The Congressional Research Service asserts that it is Congress’ responsibility to “call the convention,” which includes time, location, delegate apportionment, immunity, pay, etc.
- Idaho Legislators cannot control what will happen if an Article V Constitutional Convention is called. The Congressional Research Service says a likely scenario is that delegate apportionment would be based on the Electoral College model, which would give Idaho FOUR delegates out of 535!
- Legislation such as Idaho House Bill 67, purporting to set delegate apportionment, pay, penalties, etc., appears to be an unconstitutional usurpation of congressional authority. Will federal courts decide this dispute or will Congress just ignore the Idaho legislature like they do now?
- Black’s Law Dictionary is America’s most trusted law dictionary. Its definition of constitutional convention: “A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.” Renaming it a “Convention of States” doesn’t change what it is.
- Article V gives Congress power to bypass state legislatures and use state ratifying conventions, giving them and their cronies influence over the process. Ratification can be ¾ of the states’ (38) legislatures OR in ‘special ratifying conventions’ in the ¾ states thereof. Which do you think they’d choose? Legislatures might debate forever. Ratifying conventions are a rubber stamp. [Utah’s legislature would not have repealed Prohibition. The rules for Article 5 were used to pass it through a ratifying Convention.]
- The only precedent for this is the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia where they changed the Article 13 rules of ratification. “The Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” But the convention lowered the bar from “every State” to “the conventions of nine States,” cutting legislators out altogether. They made it easier to ratify the new Constitution.
- If the ratification process is guaranteed to stop bad amendments since it requires 3/4 of the states, how were bad amendments such as the 16th, 17th and 18th amendments ratified? The 17th Amendment removed the state legislatures’ check on federal abuses of power. A return is needed to the pre-17th Amendment system where the state legislatures would appoint U.S. Senators who could then rein in federal spending instead of pursuing special interest money.
- Beware of false Constitutionalist. The Federalist Papers are not government documents. Our Constitution reigns.
- Johnny-come-lately proponents of an Article V Constitutional Convention pretend they can predict the future and tell us exactly how this process will play out. This naiveté would be comical if it weren’t so dangerous. They’re making many assertions about state legislators being in control of the process that are simply not supported by Article V and are disputed by the Congressional Research Service, numerous law professors, constitutional scholars and judges who have warned about the dangers of a modern convention and the damage it could do to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
- The BBA scheme allows Congress to spend money on anything, no matter how unconstitutional, so long as the amount does not exceed the limits set in Section 2 of the BBA.
- Without discussing the role of the Federal Reserve and curtailing its ability to simply print money and buy influence, any proposal to address financial issues will fail. The Fed has an uncanny ability to manipulate procedures and move money around to avoid oversight. Why is this never addressed by proponents of an Article V Constitutional Convention?
Quoting Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. of The New American magazine,
“The various purportedly unrelated efforts by self-professed conservatives, socialists, and progressives to call for a new constitutional convention are moving forward. Many otherwise well-meaning state legislators are falling for their common line that such a convention is the only way to save the Republic.
“The self-professed conservatives, on one hand, insist that if a new convention isn’t held, the growth of the federal government will go on forever until all power is consolidated in Washington, D.C.
“Their socialist and progressive collaborators, however, are pushing for an Article V convention as a means of finally changing all the things they believe are wrong about our form of government.
“Rhetoric and political leanings aside, the result of either scenario is a new Constitution. Of course, the Convention of States (COS), the Compact for America, and other Article V proponents on the right, argue up and down that they are not calling for a new constitutional convention. Then, as if that weren’t enough, they criticize those of us who oppose their movement for being “false constitutionalists,” and for believing that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a “runaway” convention.”
REVEALING FACTS ON APPLICATIONS AND RESCISSIONS
Since applications have been recorded and tracked, there have been over 400 various applications for an Article V convention. 49 of the 50 states have at one or more times filed for an Article V Convention. Idaho has been listed for calls 6 times all the way back to 1910 and a most recent rescission in 1999.
Since 1988, 17* states have rescinded all of their constitutional convention calls after awakening to how fatal a Con-Con could be and the real root interest ($) behind them. Rescinded Con-Con calls: AL 1988, LA 1990, OR 1999, ID 1999, UT 2001, ND 2001, AZ 2003, VA 2004, SC 2004, GA 2004, MT, 2007, OK 2009, WY 2009, NH 2010, SD 2010, and TN 2010. *Actually FL had rescinded its Con-Con calls in 1988, but passed a new BBA Con-Con call in 2010.
Given the numbers of applications it’s amazing that we’ve been blessed with forthright rescissions prevailing in most instances due to awakening to the reality of the fatal danger a Con-Con would pose to our Constitution once it’s called.
IN SUMMATION: There are many good reasons why for 228 years America hasn’t had a new national Constitutional Convention (con-con). Historically, Americans have understood that a con-con will set its own rules, its own agenda and can even change the ratification process just like they did in 1787. This is how we got our current Constitution.
Salivating, originating forces of the many different calls really just want the door to a Con-Con opened, understanding full well once they’ve convened they can change anything and everything. These are very devious people with clandestine designs for our future who are being followed by the naïve and over trusting.
Legislators should not fall for poker face promises & hyped un-researched proclamations. They need to do the research, the hard work themselves. They owe it to us, their constituents that hired them and all our grandchildren. Aren’t you curious why there are so many different organizations all calling for single issue Con-Con’s? As Vince Lombardi would say, ‘What the Hell is going on here!’
THIS IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST THREAT THAT CAN TAKE DOWN AMERICA OVERNIGHT. No other issue facing us can take down our beloved country as we’ve known it literally overnight like this one. Legislators should not be taken in by professionally prepared hype based on ‘doctored’ information presented as fact. Legislators need to ‘patriot up,’ do the hard work and do right by their oath to follow and protect our wonderful Constitution.
Should they vote for a Con-Con, how will they live with themselves and face their family and constituents when they finally realize that they have been duped by the incredibly well financed, extremely professional poker faced forces behind the many, many con-con movements? And how will it set with you that they failed their Oath of Office they should have held sacred?
We don’t have a constitution problem, we have an adherence problem. The ‘fix’ is following law, law enforcement and nullification. That is the real serious effort that would surely work and needs being done.
I just received a report that the wise legislators of Montana have defeated 3 applications for Con-Cons: SJ7 – Convention of the States and HJ3 – Wolf PAC were both killed in committees and HJ4 – Compact for a Balanced Federal Budget was voted down 77 – 23. Utah defeated HJR 3 – The Countermand Amendment and HJR 14 – Convention of the States. And Wyoming stopped SJR4 Convention of the States, HJR 4 Balanced Federal Budget (BBA) failed in the Senate committee and HB75 Compact for America (CFA), Compact for a Balanced Budget (CFBB) failed in Senate committee.
Now it’s time for our Idaho wise men and women to step up. Voters particularly will be watching who is voting ‘how’ on this most dangerous issue. Count on it!