Skip to content

Selling Out The Constitution And Properly Marketing The Con-Con

February 26, 2011

In Missouri there are several attempts to sell the folks on the fast opportunity to grab back power of the states from the federal government by adopting corner cutting legislation. You might know it as the Con-Con or an Article V convention. And as with any slick sales job, the devil is in the details, which from what I have seen of the debate, Republican legislators don’t want you to look too closely at. Additionally, it is important to understand its connection to The Repeal Amendment and just what that means and where it  comes from.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The idea that proponents of an Article V convention would like you to believe is that with requests made to Congress, it can limit the scope of the convention to those requests only. It cannot, and they know it. It clearly states as the legislatures of two-thirds of the states make application to Congress to call for a convention, it then can consider AMENDMENT(S), plural. Many states have submitted application, over the years, for various reasons and issues. All of which could alter the Constitution in ways that would have far reaching unintended consequences and change the foundation of the Constitution and American culture forever.

Phyllis Schlafly issued this message, last week, about the differences between an Article V and a Con-Con.

Here she outlines the possible train wreck from the pitfalls of chaos and corruption that might drive agendas at a Constitutional Convention:

What damage could the media and the Obama administration do as a Con Con meets to consider plural amendments to the Constitution? We do not have the statesmen of past running the country who would keep the other branches of government or the media in check during the process of a convention.

Unless you can get someone to give you concrete answers to the questions raised in these short video, perhaps it is best to hold off on any attempts to modify the Constitution through the means of a Con Con. Go to your legislators and ask them to make any changes they wish to make through the avenues already provided for in that great document. They were put there for a reason.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: