Is a Convention to Alter the US Constitution a Good Idea? Federal overreach is of great concern—rightly so, What to do about it is of equal concern, With the best of intentions, some citizens are calling for a constitutional convention to pass amendments to our US. Constitution for the purpose of reigning in federal power. .¢ premise is that the states would control the conven- tion—who the delegates would be, how they are chosen and how many per state; what amendments would be proposed by those delegates and voted on, what the processes would be and any other matters the convention would take up. Article V of our Constitution states clearly the two ways to amend the Constitution: 1. Congress proposes amendments and presents them to the States for ratification; or 2. When 2/3 of the States apply for it, Congress calls a convention to propose amendments. An amendment can be the change of an entire Article of the Constitution. It can insert some punctuation to change an amendment, or strike or replace the Second Amendment, as Hawaii's application proposes, from the Bill of Rights. In light of the recent UN Treaty the US government plans to im- pose on Americans Dec 24 of this year, itis not out of the question that we could lose our God-given right to self defense. Yet some claim an Article V convention would not change the original Constitution or Bill of Rights. ‘Our Constitution is clear: States are authorized only to ‘apply to Congress to call a convention. Beyond that they have no say. This is confirmed by an April, 2014 report by ‘the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the authorita- tive source Congress uses for accurate information. CRS states that Congress makes all the rules for an Article V convention. It points to the '70s-'80s, when there was, considerable interest in a convention. (States then began rescinding their applications.) Congress then introduced 41 bills with specific conditions as to procedures for a conven- tion, including selection of delegates—which would be, as opposed to “one state, one vote”, instead, a formula based. on the Electoral College method, whereby Virginia would have 13 votes to California's 55, etc. ‘The report shows not only what Congress could do; it verifies what it has already done in preparation for an Article V convention, Mark Meckler, of Convention of States (COS), has said that “rules were not meant to bind the future convention. Rather, they provide starting points to facilitate’, admitting that COS cannot control the process. Control isin the hands of the Congress guilty of overreach in the first place! + Whois financing what? Financier George Soros is pour- ing millions into organizations promoting an Article V convention, without regard to “left” or “right”. (Con- trary to claims, this proves that applications do not have to be similar for Congress to call a convention.) Seed money to start “Convention of States” in 2012 was $1,207,183. Most opposing a convention are paying out, of pocket with their own non-tax-deductible dollars. + Promoters claim there is no concern about a runaway convention. History tells us otherwise. ‘The 1787 Con- vention was called for the purpose of adding amend- ments to the Articles of Confederation. Yet it was, scrapped altogether and a whole new constitution was produced. There is no ruling authority to prevent that from happening again, and delegates to a convention would likely be eager to “improve government” with the best of intentions. Present at the 1787 Convention ‘were statesmen such as George Washington and James ‘Madison. How many such do we have today? + There is a claim of safety in ratification: 3/4 of states would have to ratify any proposed amendment. The 1787 Convention set precedent by changing the rules Sheriff Richard Mack, Devey Kida, Phyllis Schlay, Eagle Forum, Larry Prt, ‘Gun Owners of America, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Daughters ofthe American Revolution, Sons of the American Revolution, Justice Warren Burger, AFL-CIO, National Rille Association (NRA), Mike McHugh, Virginia ‘Gun Owners Coalition, De. Ron Paul, Thomas DiLorenzo, Tom DeWeese, ‘American Policy Center, John Birch Society, Martha Boneta, Aaron Bolinger, ‘Shermaninsitute ss, Sherman Institte, US Sen, Mike Lee, US Rep. Michele Bachman, Del Bob Marshall, Sen, Dick Black, De, Ben Cline, Del Dickie Bell, Del Steve Landes, Sen, Mark Obenshain, Dr. Miguel Faria MD, Ka Denninger, J Wiliams, NorthamericanLawCenterorg, Shawn Meshaa, {Guar ZheConstitution com, Tom White, VirginiaRight.com, Rocco Piserchi, Paradsift net, PrinciplePoliycom, SecureTheR public com, Robert Dean, “Morris Rowe, VirginiaNewsSource com, Tim Brown, Freedom Outpost com. Groups/Individuals on record opposing an Article V convention Dr Scott Bradley, Mary Webster, marywebterog Jeff Levis, Richard D. Fry atrotCoalition org, RPV Exec. Di Shaun Kenney, Ed Long, Larry Norv Chris Stearns, VA GOP Third Congressional District, Kelleigh Nelson, Publiss Hulda, Charlotte Iserbyt, Paul and Laura Jot, Danville Tea Party, Mathews ‘County GOP Commute, Mid-Peninsula Tea Party (Gloucester/Mathews ‘Middlesex). Charlie Hargis, Southvest Virginia Tea Party, Hd Long, Waynesboro Tea Party, Newport News GOP City Commits, Concerned Citizens ofthe Middle Peninsula VA, Unsted Republicans of California, American Independent Party, National Association to Keep and Bear Arms, ‘the Constitution Party, American Pistol and Rile Association, Pro-America, ‘Consttatonit United Agsinst a Constatonal Convention, Voters Against ‘Conspiracy and Treason, United Organizations of Taxpayers, and Conservative Caucus, to name afew.about who ratifies (from legislators to conventions) and the required number for ratification from all states to 3/4. What could happen today? Ratification by a simple majority? Eliminating ratification? Nine states, as ‘was done in the original Constitutional convention? Or pehaps, ratification by the siting US President? + The claim that “states would never ratify a bad amend- ment” doesn't quell concerns: The 16th and 17th amendments come to mind. Ifby some chance, Congress releases some power to the states and allows them to assign delegates to an Article V convention, who might represent us? Speaker of the House William Howell appointed Virginia representa- tives to the “Assembly of State Legislatures” (Dec 7, 2013 and June12, 2014). Although not all attended both gath- rings, the appointees are: Sen. Frank Ruff, who voted for the tax increase/ trans- portation bill (HB 2313) in 2013, and Sen. Frank Wag ner's SB513, which forced our state into regionalism via Hampton Roads Transportation “Accountability” Commission (HRTAC). Ruff fought against the Martha Boneta Farm bill. Del, Scott Lingamfelter, who voted for the transportation tax hike in’13 and HRTAC in ’14 voted in the 2004 Vir- ginia Assembly to rescind any application for a convention (one had been passed when Democrats controlled the Assembly) because: "the operations of a convention are unknown and the ap- portionment and selection of delegates, method of voting in convention, and other es- sential procedural details are not specified in Article V... the prudent course requires the General Assembly to rescind and withdraw all past applications for a convention to amend the Constitution ... Yet, Del. Lingamfelter prefiled a motion to apply FOR a con- stitutional convention in 2014 and has again prefiled for the 2015 session Del. Jim LeMunyon, who also voted for HB 2313 in 2013 as well as the 2014 Wagner bill (HRTAC) and sponsored Homeowners’ Association bills opposed by Association dwellers, has again prefiled a BBA application for 2015 Only Del. LeMunyon attended the Indiana “Assembly of State Legislatures’, where one Republican, Kris Kobach, claimed that liberals didnt even know about the Article V convention. Really? How about Cenk Uygur’s WolfPAC application and the 300+ left-leaning groups on the website movetoamend.org/organizations? Why take the risk of what could happen if a convention reveals a different Constitution? Once called, an Article V convention cannot be stopped. ‘The fourth appointee, Del. David Albo, also voted for HB 2313 and SB513 (HRTAC), an unconstitutional, unneces- sary layer of government. He voted against applying for a convention in 2004, along with the majority—but for it in 2013 and 2014. Do these sound like people we can trust to vote on making good changes to our Constitution? ‘They will be invited to another meeting Dec. 8, 2014 to attempt, to make rules and amendment proposals that Congress may never read, since they are under no legal authority to consider state suggestions. Changing the name to “Convention of States” (COS) or “Balanced Budget Amendment” (BBA) does not change ‘what iti, Itis still an Article V convention called by Congress for the purpose of proposing amendments to our Constitution. States meeting together is traditional, but for the states to decide the rules and delegates for an Article V convention is completely unconstitutional, ‘We know Congress only uses the law when it suits their purposes; they will surely not relinquish any power to State legislators in an Article V convention. ‘Are the currently proposed amendments advisable? A BBA would result in raising taxes to balance the budget (and/or printing more fiat money, with the accompany: ing inflation it causes) when there is no agreement on where to cut federal spend- ing. A BBA would increase the power of government. As it stands, Congress is only allowed to spend on the enumerated powers listed in the body of the Constitu tion. A BBA would result in no constraints on spending, bypassing the limitations of the enumerated powers. Who besides well-intending patriots, establishment Republicans and George Soros support an Article V convention? Leo Linbeck II, Richard Parker (one of the "60s SDS radicals) and Harvard Prof. Lawrence Lessig, an Obama supporter and invited guest of the 2013 Bilderberger meeting, who smiled as he said, “Let's have some more runaway conventions.” Can we depend on states to rein in federal overreach when they take federal money with strings attached (thus themselves accomplices to overreach)? Public servants don't abide by the Constitution now; why trust they'd obey a different version? Obey the Constitution, not change it. Contact us for a solution that can be done in one year, not the 2 to 7 years predicted by convention proponents. Committee for Constitutional Government + Box 972 + Gloucester VA 23061 « 4theconstitution@va.metrocast.net