Difference between revisions of "Coalition letter against Convention of States"
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
No good, and much harm, would come from a constitutional convention because it invite changing our Constitution, with the liberal media as a partner in the process. | No good, and much harm, would come from a constitutional convention because it invite changing our Constitution, with the liberal media as a partner in the process. | ||
| − | Justice Antonin Scalia condemned the proposals for an Article V convention as a "horrible idea | + | Justice Antonin Scalia condemned the proposals for an Article V convention as a "horrible idea" after he had been a Supreme Court Justice for years. Phyllis Schlafly always strongly opposed all Article V convention ideas, explaining that they would be "playing Russian Roulette with the Constitution." Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote against the suggestion of holding a Con Con. Second Amendment groups like the Gun Owners of America fully oppose it. The Founders themselves were very much against holding another constitutional convention, and many of the greatest American statesmen throughout history spoke out passionately against the idea. |
The Republican Party national platform committee rejected, nearly unanimously, an attempt in July 2016 in Cleveland to include a resolution calling for an Article V constitutional convention to enact a Balanced Budget Amendment. | The Republican Party national platform committee rejected, nearly unanimously, an attempt in July 2016 in Cleveland to include a resolution calling for an Article V constitutional convention to enact a Balanced Budget Amendment. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
The Constitution has never been the problem, and our political leaders should be defending the Constitution rather than pretending that it is the problem that needs to be somehow corrected. Politicians and courts that do not abide by the Constitution today will not abide by a rewritten one tomorrow. | The Constitution has never been the problem, and our political leaders should be defending the Constitution rather than pretending that it is the problem that needs to be somehow corrected. Politicians and courts that do not abide by the Constitution today will not abide by a rewritten one tomorrow. | ||
| − | + | Promoters of a "Convention of States," which despite its innocuous name is an Article V "Con Con," fail to attach fiscal notes to their resolutions as required in most states. Reducing federal power to secure our borders as allowed by the Convention of States resolutions would impose billions of dollars in new costs to states to deal with the crime and other harms that result from rampant illegal immigration. | |
| − | + | ||
'''Conclusion''' | '''Conclusion''' | ||
Revision as of 00:15, 14 January 2017
The undersigned organizations and individuals stand in defense of our U.S. Constitution and oppose all attempts to convene a new constitutional convention, also called a "Con Con."
State resolutions are being pushed by secret billionaires to apply to Congress to call a convention under Article V of the Constitution "to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government." Such a convention would open the door to legalizing drugs and eliminating border security. It would weaken our national security against terrorism. Such a convention would probably seek to repeal the Second Amendment while inserting a new requirement for taxpayer-funded abortion.
No good, and much harm, would come from a constitutional convention because it invite changing our Constitution, with the liberal media as a partner in the process.
Justice Antonin Scalia condemned the proposals for an Article V convention as a "horrible idea" after he had been a Supreme Court Justice for years. Phyllis Schlafly always strongly opposed all Article V convention ideas, explaining that they would be "playing Russian Roulette with the Constitution." Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote against the suggestion of holding a Con Con. Second Amendment groups like the Gun Owners of America fully oppose it. The Founders themselves were very much against holding another constitutional convention, and many of the greatest American statesmen throughout history spoke out passionately against the idea.
The Republican Party national platform committee rejected, nearly unanimously, an attempt in July 2016 in Cleveland to include a resolution calling for an Article V constitutional convention to enact a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Liberals and the media want to repeal the Electoral College, without which no new Republican candidate would have won the presidency in the past 25 years. Liberals and the media want to repeal the Treaty Clause, which protects our Nation against harmful treaties with foreign powers by requiring a difficult-to-attain 2/3rds support in the Senate.
The Constitution has never been the problem, and our political leaders should be defending the Constitution rather than pretending that it is the problem that needs to be somehow corrected. Politicians and courts that do not abide by the Constitution today will not abide by a rewritten one tomorrow.
Promoters of a "Convention of States," which despite its innocuous name is an Article V "Con Con," fail to attach fiscal notes to their resolutions as required in most states. Reducing federal power to secure our borders as allowed by the Convention of States resolutions would impose billions of dollars in new costs to states to deal with the crime and other harms that result from rampant illegal immigration.
Conclusion
Our U.S. Constitution is the longest, most successful constitution in the history of mankind. It is not for sale, and it is not broken. It should not be "fixed" by secret billionaires having their own hidden agenda for globalism and open borders, views that they conceal with broad platitudes like "limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government." Far too much is stake to gamble the future of our Constitution and our Nation on a runaway constitutional convention. Please oppose any and all proposals to convene an Article V Convention, and demand that the billionaires pushing this "horrible idea" to identify themselves and disclose their agenda.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
<groups and individuals>
