All That Matters is a Clear Understanding of Only Three Strong Points!

There is so much frustration and utter disgust with how much is wrong in our government today it has become a perfect climate for the quick fix schemers advocating the answer to our various problems in an Article V Constitutional Convention by whatever name.

1. A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION – Why should we believe that Congress would magically follow new laws any more than present laws? Few state legislators seem to realize that our nation’s disastrous budget deficits had accrued out of disregard for constitutional restraints in the first place. Had government been held only to its constitutionally authorized activities, no budget crisis could have developed. See: ‘The Solution Is the Constitution, Not Article V’Much can be accomplished by following the Constitution, existing laws and by Nullification.
2. A RUNAWAY CONVENTION CANNOT BE PREVENTED!!! – Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Berger issued a stern warning:‘Nobody tells a Con-Con what to do. Its powers to propose Amendments are unlimited. In light of this information, does America, do you, really want to risk a convention?“Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risk involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subject needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention.”

   Similar views come from Former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Arthur J. Goldberg who said: “A few people have asked, ‘Why not another Constitutional Convention?’ I would respond by saying that one of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being.”

   Justice Goldberg is not the only imminent legal scholar to be concerned about a runaway convention. The late Rex E. Lee, former law school professor and later President of Brigham Young University has written: “In short, if the question is whether a runaway convention is assured, the answer is no, but if the question is whether it is a real and serious possibility, the answer is yes. In our history, we have only one experience with a Constitutional Convention, and while the end result was good, the convention itself was a definite runaway.”

   In his early career before he became Justice of the Supreme Court, the late Anthony Scalia is often quoted as stating he supported a constitutional convention. However, later in his career with the wisdom from a lot more experience and considering the realities of the day he became opposed to it.

   Quoting Christian Gomez’s article ‘Justice Scalia’s Warning of a Constitutional Convention’ in The New American.com:“During the question-and-answer session following a speech Scalia gave to the Federalist Society in Morristown, New Jersey, on May 8, 2015, he was asked whether a constitutional convention would be in the nation’s interest.

   “‘A constitutional convention is a horrible idea,’ Scalia replied. ‘This is not a good century to write a constitution.’

   “Although COS might have one believe that a constitutional convention is a ‘different creature entirely‘ from an Article V convention or ‘convention of the states,’ as they call it, this is simply not true.” – These were Justice Scalia’s most recent stated views.

3. RATIFICATION REALITY –You can count on this! A Constitutional Convention would not risk sending their results out for 38 state legislators to ratify since Article V’s option (Ratifying Conventions) offers such a failsafe alternative. (Factoid: Utah’s legislature would never have repealed Prohibition. A Ratifying Convention repealed it.)The mindset of the convention will assuredly be that ratifying in state legislatures would be entirely too perilous with endless debate, filibustering, committee assignments, legal challenges etc. into ad nauseum multiplied times 38. No. They would send convention results to hand-selected delegates at Ratifying Conventions who will be like-minded baggage carrying colleagues who would be chumps in the world of constitutional patriotism.

LASTLY:

1. Legislators should realize where the funding for all these well healed lobbyists and their very expensive promotional efforts are coming from to push this with such dogged urgency.
2. Application rescissions never time out, they are intentionally rescinded once states come to their senses. Idaho has had 6 applications in our past going all the way back to 1910. You have to ask yourself why so many times did our states awaken and rescind.I think Americans are smarter than they often are given credit for and have just temporarily given into the spell cast by poker-faced presentations which have been fueled by our being fed up with how poorly our system has performed from not following the Constitution and the hunger to right things with the wish of a quick fix.

   After awakening to reality, legislators have often done the right thing and rescinded those applications. We’ve been blessed with the wisdom of those patriotic Americans.

3. Please read the fresh in-depth report ‘The Left Wants a Con-Con Too’ from TheNewAmerican.com., the 2016 report ‘The Dangerous Path – Big Money’s Plan to Shred the Constitution’ from CommonCause.org and the 2017 report ‘States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues’ from The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.