The War of Con-Con

In response to an email critical of "convention," I prepared a response with some basic facts hopefully for understanding.

First, highlights of the email I received:

Doug,

What is your view on the list of opinions below ? Looks like Levin has some diagreements.

As one respondent kindly informed us yesterday, the genie is out of the bottle. Michigan became the state that enables the con-con. Here is what we need to look for:

Targeted amendment. It is said to be a balanced budget amendment. Look for any changes in this target. I do not expect any, but you never know.

Deadline for balancing the budget: Given the kind of Congress we have, you can look for a deadline far enough into the future that the economy can be further damaged beyond repair (although, honestly, we will not ever pay off our debt as it is and unpaid liabilities bring the total to at least 100 trillion. Nothing can save us from a future collapse unless the laws of mathematics change. I wouldn't put it past the government to try that!)

Exceptions: Look at the wording of the new amendment, assuming it is passed. Are there any clauses that enable the govenrment to get around this, such as national emergencies? There is ALWAYS a national emergency and that is how the government has always managed to convince the sheeple that more money must be spent or the unthinkable will happen. It is sleight of hand.

Further down the road, watch the government to see how it slyly avoids complying. Watch the Supreme Court to see how it reacts to the new amendment. It may require mitigating clauses and the public will again grab its ankles.

Again, consider the options in the likely event of a failure. Nullification is the best option. More States only have to grow a pair and just refuse to comply. It is their right, notably under the 10th Amendment. That is, unless this con-con decides to eliminate that amendment. Anything can happen now.

Read Article 1.Section 8 [Excuse me, I wrote that, but I oppose it--Don]. A Balanced Amendment is no good if the politicians balance the budget and then spends like drunken politicians. The purpose of the Law is to set a standard, punish with consequences for not keeping the standard, and the restore to the standard of the law. Thus Protection and Order results. The problem is the the politicians believe they are exempt from the law. If you look up Newt Gingrich's 1994 Contract With America that was given to Newt by the Heritage Foundation, you will see the first promise (LIE) was they would pass a law that they would live by the same laws the people live by. My question is, where in the Document did they figure they already are above the law ? The go thru the rest of the list in the 1994 CWA and you will realize how asleep the people are when Newt brags about the success of the CWA. He is an immoral man. This contract reflects his life and political career.

I've been afraid of the con-con coming to fruition for over 25 yrs.

If the Left wants it, that should tell us what we need to know, given
the havoc they would wreak if given the license.

But this crisis is *also* an educational opportunity, not to be
wasted. When on the verge of losing the USC, perhaps some can be
enlightened about it's value -- and how to restore it.

Do you read Levin? Here's my answer...First have him support us on "BHO's providing his valid, rightly-certified birth documentation as his unquestionable proof of natural born citizen, POTUS eligibility, even if first proving he is a citizen".

This wipes out any need for an "NBC" definition contest...and makes it on the same exact plain as any kid MUST do to play in our little leagues, Pop Warner football or virtually any organized sport.
Then, when it's resolved,. we'll consider it as he will have showed "good faith". And what levin should do is provide to every participant first HIS list of exactly what he wants to change and have everyone sign off on it...or not/

For our part though, on that score, our answer is ENFORCE the Constitution as it is first.

He goes out of his way to denounce the JBS, because they have been the leader on the anti-concon resistance. I found an article by [husband’s name] written in the 60s demanding the end of the Fed. It is scary to see how those of us who want to defend the constitution, but can be tricked by Levin types. I scanned the other emails you have posted. This govt that our Founders gave us is NOT easy for the average person to understand. I have to work at it and I've been living this for 50 years.

There was a big push for a con con in the late '80s. Dick Fatherley, Richard, was part of the push back to this movement. He made a speech exposing the dangers of a runaway convention. Google Dick Fatherley. He was a major radio announcer from the Kansas City area. Won awards and actually had some voice overs that played on Limbaugh's show. He became famous for denouncing the wheat give aways to the Soviets. He would open his show with the line, "Kansas City, bread basket of the Soviet Union." After that, no station would allow him behind a 'live' mike. So funny. He was one of the heroes. He gave his career to the freedom fight. He had an incredible voice and talent. You would laugh when he read the phone book.
Dick and others have really educated many people about the thing that Levin is pushing. That is what he is mad at. I don't know if his plan is that different from the convention that conservatives are alarmed over.
Dick, also, led the charge over Desmond Tutu or Mandela touring the U S. Dick was living in the Miami at the time and it was on the major cities tour. I think he changed Miami's mind about welcoming Tutu/Mandela. Dick had been a speaker for the JBS in the '80s exposing the media.

You might enjoy chasing down this part of the history of conservatives not wanting a con con.

My Response:

First of all, Levin did not call for a con-con.  He calls for an Article V. Convention, which is a totally different animal.  People use the term con-con for propaganda, to frighten us away from the tool available to us.

Second, a balanced budget amendment is not necessary and would muddy the waters.  If spending was cut back to only constitutional authorities, the budget would balance, and there would be a surplus.  Based on my calculations, a complete elimination of all unconstitutional spending would reduce our federal spending to about 5% of GDP, and we would have the entire debt paid off within my lifetime (I am 48).

Third, Levin is a lawyer.  He used to be against a convention, and his understanding of the originalist view of the Constitution is not always on track, because his view of it is obstructed by his legal training which promotes case law as being the "interpretation" of the Constitution, and disregards the originalist point of view.  In law school, the Constitution is not even opened.  The lessons about constitutional law are regarding the opinions of judges.  I have had two lawyers take my class, and proclaim that they learned more from me than they did from law school.  Until Levin let's go of the judicial influence in his opinions, we will have to continue to carefully scrutinize what he says or writes before we can endorse it.

The John Birch Society does a lot of good, but I disagree with them on their stance regarding convention.  Theirs is an anti-constitutional view.  Though I am not a big fan of Alexander Hamilton, he did understand the original intent, because he was there, and his Federalist 85 is a very good defense of convention, the fail safe being the requirement of 3/4 ratification.  Aside from that disagreement, I have a very good relationship with the JBS.  In fact, the local chapter has had me as a speaker a number of times, and we are working together on a number of projects locally, such as our fight against Agenda 21, and attending together as a one-two punch in meetings with local politicians.

Finally, as tools available to patriots, there are three kinds of conventions.  There has been only one Constitutional Convention (Con-con), and there should only be one.  An Article V. Convention is a valuable tool as long as We the People ensure that the delegates are trusted members of our communities, who understand the originalist intent of the Constitution, and as long as the fail-safe 3/4 ratification remains in place.  The third is a concept not discussed much, and one that my organization, The Constitution Association, is working to put into place.  It is closer along the lines of what was intended in regards to State Sovereignty, and the States being the final arbiters of the Constitution.  A "Republic Review" (term coined by G.R. Mobley) is a convention of the States to review federal law and actions to determine by ratification standards if those actions are constitutional or not, and if not, for those States to then unify in nullification.  An Article V. Convention would probably follow up the Republic Review in order to institute amendments necessary.

Blessings,

 

Douglas V. Gibbs
Constitution Radio, KCAA AM1050
Author, 25 Myths of the United States Constitution
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.douglasvgibbs.com
www.constitutionassociation.com