Rick Aiello: The Case AGAINST a Constitutional Convention

Civil Society, Ethics, Government
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

To Robert David Steele:

I applaud your open source initiatives and have enjoyed your interviews, but I have seen two recent emails from your Public Intelligence Blog expressing your support for a Convention of States. While your DOUBLE-DOWN, MODIFY & EXPAND, and REVERSE ideas for changing existing Amendments certainly make sense, a Convention of States, a Constitutional Convention, and similar proposals are NOT the proper way to change the Constitution. The amendment process is the way to do that.

A convention is very dangerous, which is why it is being promoted by people such as George Soros (a billionaire who spends millions promoting communism); Lawrence Lessig (a leftist you can read about in the attached Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution); Mark Levin, and others who lean far left because they are either globalists or trying to curry favor with them.

Why is a Constitutional Convention dangerous? Because once started, it cannot be controlled. Former Supreme Court justices Warren E. Burger and Arthur J. Goldberg and other leading constitutional scholars said that such a convention can propose sweeping changes to the Constitution, regardless of any limitations imposed by the states in applying for such a convention, which therefore can imperil the rights of the citizens.

We have had only one such convention, and that was to make improvements to the Articles of Federation, such as strengthening its central government. But instead of just “making improvements”, the delegates rewrote the entire document. Fortunately, they had the moral wherewithal and prescience to produce what is now the law of the land: the national Constitution (properly called the Constitution for the united States of America, circa 1787, as amended in 1791 with the Bill of Rights). But do you think that if such a convention were held today, the leftists and globalists who would surely have their hands in the process would not scrap the Constitution and replace it with something that legalizes their tyranny?

One of the attachments to this email, Nullification vs. Constitutional Convention: How to Save Our Republic, makes the very significant point that:

“Considering the penchant of all three branches of the federal government — congressional, executive, and judicial — for routinely disregarding existing constitutional restraints on their power, why should we expect that they would suddenly faithfully obey an amended Constitution?

“In fact, why would we even assume that an amended Constitution would be an improvement? The Constitution has been amended 27 times in the past, but not all of those amendments improved the Constitution despite claims made by proponents at the time. For instance, in 1913 two damaging amendments were added to the Constitution: the 16th Amendment authorizing the federal government to impose an income tax and the aforementioned 17th Amendment. Those amendments — and all others to date — were proposed by Congress and ratified by the states.

“Would a constitutional convention propose beneficial or harmful changes to the Constitution? And if the latter proves to be the case, would the states — caught up in the political passions of the moment — still ratify these changes as they did the 16th and 17th Amendments? There is no way of knowing for sure.” (Emphases added)

Think about that excerpt. Although the Constitution has flaws, the problems we are facing daily from an overarching, arrogant government are not caused by the Constitution but with the widespread refusal to obey it. If people continually run a stop sign at a busy intersection, the solution is not to change the sign but to enforce the law.

Here is a short (6:50) video called A Crash Course on a Constitutional Convention.

Government and non-government officials need to be held accountable to their oaths of office. The Constitution does not need to be change – it needs to be enforced.

Please do not support any call for a Convention of States, a Constitutional Convention, or anything like it!

PDF (3 Pages): Con-Con Bullet Points (2012-05-16)

PDF (5 Pages): Nullification vs. Constitutional Convention-How to Save Our Republic (2014-04-07)

PDF (7 Pages): Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution (2014-06-09)

You can find more information at https://www.jbs.org/con-con.

Robert David STEELE Vivas

ROBERT STEELE: The John Birch Society appears to have organized on this issue and is providing structured relevant information at the above web site. They do have a point. From where I sit the 17th Amendment is the one to start with — Senators must represent the sovereign states and have the power to say no to any federal proposal.  There must be an end to federal borrowing and a vast reduction in federal spending and regulatory overreach as well as federal misappropriation of state lands. My own views on specific amendments that need to be addressed, not necessarily by a  Constitutional Convention or Convention of States, are at the link below.

See Especially:

Robert Steele: Convention of States — Restoring the Constitution

See Also:

John McAfee: If I Leave Libertarian Party, 57% Would Leave With Me [Robert Steele 2024 Concept Added]

Robert Steele: Con-Con or Convention of States?