Ohio Alert: Ohio to push for a Constitutional Convention this Wednesday [Archive]

View Full Version : Ohio Alert: Ohio to push for a Constitutional Convention this Wednesday

FrankRep

12-08-2008, 07:41 PM

t0rnado

12-08-2008, 08:07 PM

This is the direct link to the legislation proposed:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=127_HJR_8

This is a good start and I'm honestly surprised at this, but it's basically like one of those bills Congress passes telling China that suppressing Buddhists is bad.

I'd be willing to bet that this will pass the Ohio State House since it's currently controlled by the GOP. The thing is, nothing will happen until 34 states do the same thing. That's not going to happen any time soon, but if the economy gets worse, there's a good chance more and more states will push for a constitutional convention!

Email your State Reps about this and ask them to propose similar legislation!

FrankRep

12-08-2008, 08:27 PM

t0rnado

12-08-2008, 08:40 PM

Pete

12-08-2008, 08:50 PM

Email your State Reps about this and ask them to propose similar legislation!

No, please! :eek: Here's a good article about it:

http://www.principledpolicy.com/?p=501:

and some important historical context, from the article:

Historically, the original Constitutional Convention in 1787 was called specifically to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to write a new constitution. In fact, many states were so fearful of a complete restructuring of government with a shift of power from the states to a central government that they passed resolutions requiring their delegates to discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY and specifically forbade them to discuss core changes to the Articles or to re-draft them. It is interesting to note that the first act of the Constitutional Convention was to agree to act in complete secret. The second act was to debate the restrictions from state governments regarding discussion of re-drafting the Articles and to declare the Articles of Confederation as null and void. The convention agreed in one fell swoop to ignore state restrictions and to scrap the Articles. So much for state legislative restrictions on Con Con delegates.

fr33domfightr

12-08-2008, 09:05 PM

I quickly read it over. It looks like its proposing "balanced budgets, "Line Item Veto," and "Biennial accounting."

What about changing some Constitutional language that explicitly tells Congress its duties, etc., etc.

FF

t0rnado

12-08-2008, 09:08 PM

No, please! Here's a good article about it:

http://www.principledpolicy.com/?p=501:

and some important historical context, from the article:

Quote:
Historically, the original Constitutional Convention in 1787 was called specifically to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to write a new constitution. In fact, many states were so fearful of a complete restructuring of government with a shift of power from the states to a central government that they passed resolutions requiring their delegates to discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY and specifically forbade them to discuss core changes to the Articles or to re-draft them. It is interesting to note that the first act of the Constitutional Convention was to agree to act in complete secret. The second act was to debate the restrictions from state governments regarding discussion of re-drafting the Articles and to declare the Articles of Confederation as null and void. The convention agreed in one fell swoop to ignore state restrictions and to scrap the Articles. So much for state legislative restrictions on Con Con delegates.

Much of that is bullshit with no backing. The states didn't propose the amendments in 1787 and the states didn't forbid any delegates from not speaking about anything. In 1787, Congress create a committee that decided on what to change.

This time around it's the states deciding the amendments not Congress.

This backs up everything I've stated:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/continental/constit.html
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(bdsdcc11801))

FrankRep

12-08-2008, 09:44 PM

I understand why you would be opposed to this, considering that Congress can choose the terms, the delegates, and location. The thing is though, that the bill specifically states that the delegates would only vote on the amendments proposed by the states.

To get educated on the dangers of an Article V Constitutional Convention, please view this 4 part comprehensive video which was created to inform state legislators of the process and its pitfalls.

VIDEO: Beware Article V: Message to State Legislatures
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za8_pdJ1dPo&feature=related
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flHJrcdfbBg&feature=related
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly1Lh3bqtYM&feature=related
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5jKAlgvCgg&feature=related

OUTLINE OF THE ISSUES

A. WHEN A CONVENTION IS CALLED:

Step 1: Legislatures apply to Congress to call a Convention

Step 2: Congress shall call a convention (determining where, how delegates are paid, how much, how many delegates and how they are chosen.) No guarantee of election of delegates by the people. Congress is given a free hand to determine the method of selecting delegates.

Step 3: for purpose of proposing Amendments. No provision in Article V limits the actual amendment(s) proposed or adopted by the Convention.

B. MAIN OBJECTIONS:

1. The Convention is not limited to the reason for its call.

The absence of an enforceable mechanism to control the content and outcome of a Convention puts our Constitution and Bill of Rights in jeopardy.

2. The States and the People have no power to elect/determine delegates.

The absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put the convention within the hands of single issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well being.

Pete

12-09-2008, 05:17 AM

Much of that is bullshit with no backing. The states didn't propose the amendments in 1787 and the states didn't forbid any delegates from not speaking about anything. In 1787, Congress create a committee that decided on what to change.

This time around it's the states deciding the amendments not Congress.

This backs up everything I've stated:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/continental/constit.html
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(bdsdcc11801))

There's nothing in those links about the proceedings of the rules committee or the instructions delegates had from their states.

Here's a politically neutral account that is consistent with my first quote:

http://www.answers.com/topic/constitutional-convention

On February 21, 1787, the Confederation Congress adopted a resolution authorizing the convention but limited its mandate to revision of the Articles. Several states already had named their delegates and, citing the Annapolis Convention's report, authorized them to take any measures "to render the constitution of government adequate to the exigencies of the Union." The convention thus began with an inconsistent mandate.

and

The convention elected Washington as its president and appointed a committee to prepare rules. Two of these were vital to the convention's success. First, as was customary among legislatures in the Anglo-American world, the convention met in secret, which would permit full and free discussion. Second, the delegates were free to change their minds and reopen any matters for further debate.

lynnf

12-09-2008, 06:17 AM

FrankRep

12-09-2008, 07:11 AM

SOURCE:
http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2180

HELP! Meet at state capital Wednesday to Stop the Constitutional Convention

http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww106/cpofohio/ConConLogo.jpg

DESCEND ON THE STATE CAPITAL
TO STOP THE CALL FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION[/CENTER]

THIS WEDNESDAY
December 10, 2008
9:30am
Room 313
Meet inside the Rotunda at 9:15am
Ohio Statehouse
60 E State St
Columbus, OH 43215
Statehouse Parking Facility (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=Statehouse+Parking+Facility&fb=1&latlng=0,0,4055523943036245087&near=Columbus,+OH&oi=manybox&ct=11&cd=1&resnum=1)

Please join us in attending the hearing on HJR 8 (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=127_HJR_8) before the House Judiciary Committee and consider giving testimony. A large attendance is critical to impress upon the legislators that the issue merits serious concern and should not be rubber stamped!

If possible, type up your testimony and make 11 copies for the committee members.

Be sure to sign your name when you arrive and indicate whether you intend to testify. Sign-up sheets are available at all meetings.

The Chairman will announce when a particular bill is coming before the committee for discussion. The bill's sponsor is usually the first to speak. After his testimony, the Chairman then may ask for testimony from proponents and opponents.

All testimony and committee discussion must be addressed through the Chairman.

Begin your testimony by addressing the Chairman and committee members. State your name, address, and why you are there. For example: "Mr. (or Madam) Chairman Blessing, members of the Committee, my name is Pat Q. Public and I'm from Columbus. I am not in favor of this bill because...."

Be courteous and brief in your language and address. Try not to repeat testimony offered by previous witnesses. Be prepared to answer questions. Respond to the questions as best you can. You need not be embarrassed if you do not have a specific answer.

Do not be nervous as there is no right or wrong way to testify. Legislators are your friends and neighbors elected to represent you -- they want to hear what you have to say.

Demonstrations, applause, or addressing committee members or other witnesses in the audience are prohibited.
Background on this issue (http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2175)

Email Your State Representative! (http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2179)

For questions contact:
Teri M. Owens
Assistant chapter leader
Delaware JBS
libertyinlaw@gmail.com
cell: 614-816-0933

FrankRep

12-09-2008, 07:20 AM

Update:

State Representative Jim McGregor
20th House District

RE: Vote NO on HJR 8 for a Constitutional Convention

I agree completely. A constitutional convention could cost us our
freedom. I will oppose this unwise bill.

Sincerely,
Jim McGregor

LibertyEagle

12-09-2008, 07:38 AM

that's a nice theory, but i believe that it has been proven before that a convention cannot be limited -- once convened the barn door is open and the whole shebang is fair game. A good reason to not have a convention. There's no telling what would come out the other end.

Lynn

qft

LibertyEagle

12-09-2008, 07:39 AM

Deleted.

JVParkour

12-09-2008, 08:21 AM

I wish I could come, dang it. I am in NC taking exams...I am coming back home to Cincy tomorrow, but I won't be able to make it on time. Good Luck!

FrankRep

12-09-2008, 09:44 AM

Update:

Apparently, the chairman of the Judicial Committee is not holding public testimony at their Wednesday hearing (http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2180) on the Con-Con call legislation (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=127_HJR_8) which was introduced just last week. There is concern that it could be sent to the house floor for a full vote in the afternoon tomorrow and that a Senate companion bill will be introduced.

In this political climate, the uncertainty and danger of a Constitutional Convention poses too great a risk to Ohio citizens and it should be given serious consideration before a vote is cast.

This legislation seems to be moving so quickly, before our Representatives can get sufficiently educated on it -- and the public is being silenced.

We still plan to be at the hearing tomorrow (http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2180) morning as planned, but we must demand to be heard!

No one is answering the phones at Chairman Blessings office and voicemail messages are not being returned.

Please EVERYONE call, email AND fax the Chairman (http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=29) to request public testimony before there is a vote taken by the committee. Be polite, but firm.These are OUR government servants - not our representatives from government.

Louis W. Blessing, Jr. (http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=29) ( R )
Representative
District 29

Tel: (614) 466-9091
Fax: (614) 719-3583
Email: district29@ohr.state.oh.us

Tired of not getting answers? Call the rest of the committee (http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaycommittees&task=2&type=Regular&committeeId=19).

JVParkour

12-09-2008, 10:01 AM

I called all the people on the comittee (the republicans) and only contacted two. I let 'em know I strongly requested a public testimony, and told them to pass it on to Chairman Blessing.

Hope it helps some!

FrankRep

12-09-2008, 10:06 AM

Did you contact Louis W. Blessing, Jr.?

Louis W. Blessing, Jr. ( R )
Representative
District 29

Tel: (614) 466-9091
Fax: (614) 719-3583

FrankRep

12-09-2008, 10:41 AM

Ohio Being Denied Public Testimony on Con Con Vote Tomorrow
http://digg.com/politics/Ohio_Being_Denied_Public_Testimony_on_Con_Con_Vote _Tomorrow

Pete

12-09-2008, 10:52 AM

Called and dugg.

IPSecure

12-09-2008, 11:01 AM

The State Of Ohio Has: (As Of June 30, 2007)
This Does NOT Include Counties, Cities, or Towns!

$65,708,832,000 Total Assets.

$43,051,847,000 Total Liabilities.

$22,656,985,000 in Net Assets.

http://www.obm.ohio.gov/finrep/cafr/cafr07/cafr07.pdf
(Page 29 in PDF)

More Info: http://www.obm.ohio.gov/finrep/cafr/

When is enough, enough?

BarryDonegan

12-09-2008, 11:56 AM

"except in a time of war" renders the constitutional ammendment useless. we've been technically under war powers throughout all of the 20th century. if they remove the line and replace it with except under an emergency ratified by 2/3 of the states, or something hard to get like that, that would allow them to all decide on what is considered a time for war power deficit spending, in case it was needed, but not game-able by bankers by using proxy war or terrorism as an excuse to deficit spend forever.

FrankRep

12-09-2008, 12:11 PM

FrankRep

12-09-2008, 01:42 PM

Update:

According to Representative Flowers's secretary, Rebecca, there WILL be public testimony PRO and CON tomorrow morning.

Believe me they intend to push this quickly so I think they are caving to the public hearing.

FrankRep

12-09-2008, 01:58 PM

This email will explain why this Con-Con is dangerous.

Dear Representative _________:

I am writing to alert you to flaws in Article V of the U.S. Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html) that would make the calling of a constitutional convention a risky and foolish tool in the effort to force a federal balanced budget. Put simply, the problem with an Article V convention is that the states have no power to elect/appoint delegates and once called, the convention cannot be controlled. Please view this four part video made by other state legislators on the issue: Beware Article V (http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9139&postcount=6). It is a comprehensive video that will answer all of your questions.

A Constitutional Convention is not a sound route in achieving a more responsive government, but rather opens a Pandora's box that cannot be constitutionally closed or controlled once it is opened. The only legal precedent in our nation's history for a Constitutional Convention was the one held in 1787 for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article13). Despite the requirement in the Articles of Confederation that all state legislatures consent to amendments, the delegates emerged with an entirely new system of government and declared that per the new Constitution's Article VII (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A7.html) only 9 of the 13 states were needed to ratify it.

This is because by its very nature a Constitutional Convention is a sovereign body that cannot be limited in its scope or outcome. Accordingly, if one is called (and the nation is dangerously close to having the requisite states) the fundamental pillars of our liberty in the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution are up for grabs and open to any and all changes. The Constitution and Bill of Rights could be scrapped and a new form of government declared.

Can we trust the delegates in today's political climate to respect and protect our God-given rights in any of their political building? Before you seriously ponder that, consider that from the plain language in Article V it is Congress – not the States that determines who and how many delegates will serve. This puts the convention in danger of being controlled by single interest groups whose agenda is contrary to the well-being of our state and nation.

Finally, it is important to note that a Constitutional Convention is not needed to address the concern cited in HJR 8. Applications for a Convention should only to be used if a Legislature believes that the present Constitution is structurally flawed and in need of repair. An unbalanced federal budget is not the result of a "Constitutional flaw," rather it is the result of a Congress which consistently refuses to obey Constitutional restraint upon its spending of federal funds. Note that 218 members of the House can wield enormous power by simply employing their rightful authority as it appears in Article I, Section 7: "All bills for raising revenues shall originate in the House of Representatives…." If the House will not originate a measure to fund unconstitutional programs, there's nothing the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court, or anyone else can do about it. This is where the problem is to be properly tackled.

There is no guarantee of what the Constitutional Convention might produce and given the sweeping changes that could result from a Con-Con I hope you will agree that this bill is unwise or at the very least requires serious consideration.

For reasons unknown, the GOP caucus is pushing this legislation through very quickly. Many Ohio citizens are interested in giving public testimony before the committee vote tomorrow morning, but the Chairman of the Judiciary committee will not allow it.

Please use your influence to help us halt the vote on this until at the very least, public testimony can be heard.

Thank you,
Teri M. Owens
Secretary
Constitution Party of Ohio
secretary@cpofohio.org
740-816-0933

BarryDonegan

12-09-2008, 02:20 PM

i still think, in the circumstances of review, that we need to yield to a variety of advice from legal scholars about constitutional conventions. the things that they select still have to be ratified by the states.

do we really believe that a secret body will be hired who will come in and force a coup on the country and that all the states will then ratify it?

wouldn't the state legislature have to be involved in that step?

the same theoretic loopholes of the law exist in every aspect of our legal system. such as war powers. the president already has sufficient legal grounds via war powers to enact a coup against the people, and has done so via legislative precedent numerous times.

the thing to consider is would it be politically realistic for the constitutional convention to be used as a form of coup. while i would submit that it is possible, i feel that the greater political likelihood is that the balanced budget amendment might gain steam.

why would liberal fascists try and use the CON CON to force things on us that they can do already via executive order, legislative mandate, and activist judiciary? if anything the existance of a CON CON mght cause the newsmedia and american people to read the freakin thing in the first place.

BarryDonegan

12-09-2008, 02:41 PM

the main thing that i see as problematic with this particular situation is that the effort in the legislation is definately aimed at calling a convention for the single amendment, and to provide for a legislative stop against them voting on and considering other amendments. this means that they are making an effort in the right direction, just maybe their legal ps and qs aren't in order perfectly.

bottom line is that if other states actually adopted something that was more legally sound, these guys are indicating that they would vote for such an amendment. fighting this one tooth and nail might actually bite us in the tail.

they may be making a mistake, but what are the odds every single other state will make the same mistake the same way . there has to be a legal, legislatively sound way to do this in other states in a way that does not allow for a coup.

if not then we should support their efforts, and work even faster to create a legislative initiative to reform the constitutional amendment process as it relates to submissions from the state.

times are changing, by the time this stuff clears through the economy will be ruined and people will be more internet savvy. im not so sure they can just pop "get rid of the constitution" on CNN and actually pull it off. our military might split in half over that, realistically.

like, what if we pushed for a congressional fought for constitutional amendment and then promoted resolutions in favor of the amendment in the states, if it were to be passed down by congress.

this could satisfy those people while also drawing attention to the Constitution and the Amendment process.

in this way the Ohio resolution would not specifically endanger anything, if anything it would give support to an specific amendment put through by Congress.

Pepsi

12-10-2008, 03:39 AM

bump

Carole

12-10-2008, 11:00 AM

Alert to those involved!!

They need to make very certain they know the ramifications of a Constitutional Convention.
Once convened it could nullify the existing Constitution. I read something last year about this and it was a bit alarming.

A Constitutional Convention should not normally be about a single issue agenda. It would never get off the ground.

Constitutional Convention is about a major overhaul!!! Goodbye Bill of Rights!!

If they want to change or add something, why not simply add an amendment upon which they can vote?

Carole

12-10-2008, 11:43 AM

If you live in Ohio, Please join us!
http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/

News Updates:

Ohio to push for a Constitutional Convention this Wednesday
http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2175
Here is FrankReps post. Please read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by t0rnado
I understand why you would be opposed to this, considering that Congress can choose the terms, the delegates, and location. The thing is though, that the bill specifically states that the delegates would only vote on the amendments proposed by the states.

To get educated on the dangers of an Article V Constitutional Convention, please view this 4 part comprehensive video which was created to inform state legislators of the process and its pitfalls.

VIDEO: Beware Article V: Message to State Legislatures
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za8_p...eature=related
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flHJr...eature=related
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly1Lh...eature=related
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5jKA...eature=related

OUTLINE OF THE ISSUES

A. WHEN A CONVENTION IS CALLED:

Step 1: Legislatures apply to Congress to call a Convention

Step 2: Congress shall call a convention (determining where, how delegates are paid, how much, how many delegates and how they are chosen.) No guarantee of election of delegates by the people. Congress is given a free hand to determine the method of selecting delegates.

Step 3: for purpose of proposing Amendments. No provision in Article V limits the actual amendment(s) proposed or adopted by the Convention.

B. MAIN OBJECTIONS:

1. The Convention is not limited to the reason for its call.

The absence of an enforceable mechanism to control the content and outcome of a Convention puts our Constitution and Bill of Rights in jeopardy.

2. The States and the People have no power to elect/determine delegates.

The absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put the convention within the hands of single issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well being.

FrankRep

12-10-2008, 11:56 AM

I will update you all when we officially release a statement on how the proceedings went.
-----

My Testimony Against H. J. R. 8 for the House Judiciary Committee

House Judiciary Committee
Testimony Against H. J. R. 8 (Constitutional Convention)
Frank Koch, Gahanna, Ohio 43230

December 10th, 2008

Chairman Blessing and members of the House Judiciary Committee, my name is Frank Koch and I’m a concerned citizen from Gahanna, Ohio. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in opposition to House Joint Resolution 8.

As fiscal conservative, I’m in complete agreement that something must be done to limit federal spending and reverse our growing $10 trillion dollar debt currently enslaving our country and our children.

I stand before you not against fiscal responsibility, but against the method in which you plan to implement to limit the federal government. A Constitutional Convention is a very deadly tool to use because the states have little power to control which sections of the Constitution will be opened for manipulation. Article V of the Constitution says that only Congress, not the States, can appoint delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The fate of our liberties, freedoms, and rights will be in the hands of these few select delegates who could be ignorant of the law or in the pocket of special interests.

An unbalanced federal budget is caused from irresponsible leadership within Congress and not a flaw within the Constitution. In fact, an unbalanced federal budget is caused directly from not following the Constitution. We’ll be on the right track to fix our $10 trillion dollar debt if we started to cut the wasteful and unconstitutional federal programs such as Department of Education, Department of Energy, and Homeland Security.

Lastly, I would like to point out a potential Trojan horse within the proposed resolution that could render the resolution powerless. Within the resolution it states, “First, the amendment shall require the President to submit and the Congress to adopt only balanced budgets for all federal programs and agencies, except in times of war.” The statement “except times of war” may encourage the President and Congress to start and prolong wars as long as possible to escape the peacetime fiscal restraints. I ask you to please reconsider the wording of this resolution if you choose not to oppose the Constitutional Convention.

In conclusion, I find it quite disturbing how fast this resolution is being pushed through the House. One must proceed slowly and with extreme caution before even considering a radical action such as a Constitutional Convention. America, with a few strokes of the pen, can be transformed from a Constitutional Republic into a Socialist Dictatorship and we’ll be at the complete mercy of the delegates that will change the Constitution as to how they see fit. I, as a liberty loving American, am not willing to take that chance.

Thank you for your time and for allowing me to speak in opposition to House Joint Resolution 8.

jabrownie

12-10-2008, 12:23 PM

They did not vote on it today, originally the committee was scheduled to but the chair said he had made an error and today would just be a hearing.

The reps that did speak seemed mixed, some obviously for, some obviously against. If I had to make a bet now, it would be that the committee will vote against it.

There were about 8 people who spoke gave testimony, the first was the sponsering rep who of course was for it, everyone else was against. Those who testified for our side did a great job pointing out all the things that could go wrong with a con con and why it's a bad idea. Overall there were 15-20 RPers there against it.

FrankRep

12-10-2008, 12:51 PM

Ohio Senate Constitutional Convention Bill Introduced!

The companion resolution to HJR8 (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=127_HJR_8) was just introduced in the Ohio Senate this afternoon. It is SJR9 (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=127_SJR_9).

The Senate co-sponsors are Keith Faber (http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/bios/sd_12.html) (lead sponsor), Tim Schaffer (http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/bios/sd_31.html), and Bill Seitz (http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/bios/sd_08.html).

It has not yet been assigned to committee.

FrankRep

12-10-2008, 02:45 PM

Laura's account of the hearing:

I'm back from testifying. There were 10 or 11 of us who spoke out against it, ZERO who spoke in support. After seeing all of us show up, they changed their mind and decided not to vote on it today, but Teri thinks it'll probably be voted on during the 2nd committee meeting, so we need to keep watching. The Senate version (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=127_SJR_9) was introduced yesterday as well, but last I heard it hasn't been assigned to a committee yet. Still another thing to keep an eye on.

Everybody's testimonies were GREAT, we plugged so many issues that related to the dismantling of our Constitution. I plugged RP's HR 2755 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2755) and suggested they support that instead if they really want to worry about federal spending.

The committee had some questions (they interrogated Teri, poor girl) and voiced some concerns, enough that I definitely think we have a good shot at getting this defeated!! Robert heard some hopeful comments that hopefully he'll share with you all soon.

Anthony from We Are Change Ohio recorded all of our testimonies and hopes to have a video put together by Friday, I'll post it as soon as I get it.

THANKS to everybody who came out today to testify, esp. those who drove quite a while to make it. I think we made a huge difference, much to their dismay -- this isn't turning out to be a walk in the park as they had hoped.

nobody's_hero

12-10-2008, 03:07 PM

Will someone please explain to me why we're celebrating the defeat of an over-riding power left to the states, should the U.S. Congress not be able (nor willing) to get anything done?

So far, I've got a 4-part youtube video of a guy I've never heard of interpreting parts of Article V that don't exist, and I've got the actual wording of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Right now I'm leaning towards the actual wording.

"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."

Seems to me like the responsibility to ratify or choosing not to ratify is still left to the states (either via ratification of three-fourths of the states' conventions or by three-fourths of states' legislatures).

Simple question: Is the Ohio legislature calling for a convention to propose amendments? Or is it calling for a convention to completely throw out the U.S. Constitution? (I'd be willing to bet that it is calling for a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. [edit: . . . and that's what H.J.R. 8 says at the top :o])

Article V has nothing to do with completely throwing out the U.S. Constitution, if that's what all the fear is about. A convention could propose amendments to the Constitution that would repeal parts of it beyond recognition, but such proposals must always come back to the states for ratification before the proposed amendment will take effect.

Pete

12-10-2008, 03:07 PM

That's a terrific report from Laura, Frank! I'm proud of you guys and wish I could have gotten away today to have seen and participated.

FrankRep

12-11-2008, 07:53 AM

SOURCE:
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/constitution-and-libertarian-parties-of-ohio-among-those-working-to-defeat-a-bill-calling-for-us-constitutional-convention/

Constitution and Libertarian Parties of Ohio among those working to defeat a bill calling for US Constitutional Convention

Independent Political Report
December 11th, 2008

Good news: we were all able to testify against the bill today, and we gave them a response they weren’t expecting. There were 10 of us who spoke out against it, ZERO who spoke in support.

Members from Campaign for Liberty, Ohio Freedom Alliance, We Are Change Ohio, John Birch Society, Institute for Principled Policy, Constitution Party of Ohio, and the Libertarian Party of Ohio showed up in support, most of them testified.

After seeing how many of us came, Committee Chairman Blessing changed his mind and decided not to vote on it today. In fact, he acted like it was a mistake that the paper said "possible vote." Teri (OFA, JBS, CPO) thinks it’ll probably be voted on at the next committee meeting (which will also probably not include further testimony) so we’ll need to keep watching. The Senate version was introduced yesterday as well, but last I heard it hasn’t yet been assigned to a committee. Still another thing to keep an eye on.

The committee had some questions and a couple repeatedly voiced concerns, enough so that I definitely think we have a good shot at getting this defeated.

Anthony from We Are Change Ohio recorded all of our testimonies and hopes to have a video put together by Friday, I’ll post it here as soon as I get it.
Everybody’s testimonies were GREAT, here are three of them:

Ohio House Judiciary Committee - HJR 8 Opposition Testimony
Frank Koch

Chairman Blessing and members of the House Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in opposition to House Joint Resolution 8.

As fiscal conservative, I’m in complete agreement that something must be done to limit federal spending and reverse our growing $10 trillion dollar debt currently enslaving our country and our children.

I stand before you not against fiscal responsibility, but against the method in which you plan to implement to limit the federal government. A Constitutional Convention is a very deadly tool to use because the states have little power to control which sections of the Constitution will be opened for manipulation. Article V of the Constitution says that only Congress, not the States, can appoint delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The fate of our liberties, freedoms, and rights will be in the hands of these few select delegates who could be ignorant of the law or in the pocket of special interests.

An unbalanced federal budget is caused from irresponsible leadership within Congress and not a flaw within the Constitution. In fact, an unbalanced federal budget is caused directly from not following the Constitution. We’ll be on the right track to fix our $10 trillion dollar debt if we started to cut the wasteful and unconstitutional federal programs such as Department of Education, Department of Energy, and Homeland Security.

Lastly, I would like to point out a potential Trojan horse within the proposed resolution that could render the resolution powerless. Within the resolution it states, "First, the amendment shall require the President to submit and the Congress to adopt only balanced budgets for all federal programs and agencies, except in times of war." The statement "except times of war" may encourage the President and Congress to start and prolong wars as long as possible to escape the peacetime fiscal restraints. I ask you to please reconsider the wording of this resolution if you choose not to oppose the Constitutional Convention.

In conclusion, I find it quite disturbing how fast this resolution is being pushed through the House. One must proceed slowly and with extreme caution before even considering a radical action such as a Constitutional Convention. America, with a few strokes of the pen, can be transformed from a Constitutional Republic into a Socialist Dictatorship and we’ll be at the complete mercy of the delegates that will change the Constitution as to how they see fit. I, as a liberty loving American, am not willing to take that chance.

Ohio House Judiciary Committee - HJR 8 Opposition Testimony
Robert Owens

I want thank Chairman Blessing and the members of the committee for allowing me to speak today. My name is Robert Owens, I am a lawyer from Delaware, Ohio and I am an active member and leader in a number of Christian conservative organizations that embrace the time tested and proven concepts of limited constitutional government, free enterprise and individual liberty bestowed upon us by our creator. I urge you to vote no on HJR 8.

Here are some of the possible results of a “run away” article 5 convention as described of by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger:

1. Total civilian disarmament.
2. Socialization of industry.
3. Confiscation of private property.
4. Torture of citizens.
5. Suppression of the Press and of Religion

If you started this day unaware of the reasons and legal arguments of a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that talks of a “run away” convention and,

If you started this day unaware that a totally different ratification process than what you might expect is perfectly lawful and consistent with legal precedent, and

If you started this day unaware that if a article 5 convention is called in the next two years, Nancy Pelosi and her team would get to choose how delegates are selected, how they are paid, where the convention would be held and if the convention were to be held in public or in secret. And,

If you started today unaware that Ohio would be the 33rd state in the history of the republic to call for the convention and that 34 is the magic number to forcibly trigger Congress to call the convention. Then caution is urged.

If any or all of these facts were unknown to you, please do not risk giving Congress a blank check without doing all the research. We are talking about possible political suicide to the conservative movement. This move must be carefully examined, not hurried through a December session without scrutiny.

One point of irony should not be missed in this process. If Congress actually followed the Constitution, we would have a balanced budget and there would be no need for this committee to consider this resolution. What makes anyone think Congress would be limited by new rules if it does not follow the existing ones?

The proposed convention could have devastating effects upon our American tradition of being a free people. This tradition has made us the most prosperous nation and the most charitable nation in the history of the world.

Ohio House Judiciary Committee - HJR 8 Opposition Testimony
Laura Robeson

Chairman Blessing, members of the Committee, I’m here today to speak out in opposition to this bill because of its potentially massive and irreversible ramifications.

While I am certainly in favor of a balanced federal budget, this is not the right way to bring it about. It’s not an error in our Constitution that is resulting in our massive debt, it’s much more complicated than that, and holding a Constitutional Convention will not solve the problem. You would do better to support Ron Paul’s HR 2755 legislation which would abolish the Federal Reserve System and return the monetary power to Congress and the Treasury.

Not only the lack of necessity, but also the speed with which this is being shuffled through is very worrisome. Both the recent banking industry bailouts and the Patriot Act have shown us what can happen when legislation is rushed through before doing proper research and planning. How educated is everybody here on what a Convention really entails? Not since 1787 has there been one, and this was when the Articles of Confederation were completely thrown out. Who’s to say the same won’t be done with our Constitution?

30 states have passed bills similar to HJR 8 and 7 have since realized the danger and rescinded them.

In Alabama’s HJR 347 (2000), it says:
"There is great danger ... in opening the Constitution to sweeping changes, the adoption of which would only create legal chaos in this nation and only begin the process of another two centuries of litigation over its meaning and interpretation."

Idaho's SCR 129 (1999) states:
"...the Constitution of the United States of America has been amended many times in the history of this nation and may be amended many more times, without the need to resort to a constitutional convention."

And in New Hampshire's HCR 12 (2003), it says:
"...the New Hampshire legislature urges all other states that have applied to Congress to call either a general or a limited constitutional convention to repeal and withdraw their applications."

I strongly urge this committee to heed the advice of our fellow states and vote against this bill.

THANKS to everybody who came out today to testify, esp. those who drove quite a while to make it. I think we made a huge difference, much to their dismay - this isn’t turning out to be a walk in the park as they had hoped.

Ohio Freedom Alliance
http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/

cnaw

12-14-2008, 04:55 PM

My googling efforts seem to be failing (I blame Canada and their own Convention news stories :-) ) . So I'm going to ask in this thread. I've been getting lots of emails about this Ohio bill. The emails mention that 32 other states have already voted for a Con Con. What I want to know, is who those states are and when did they voted for a convention. Is there a page that lists all this? Thanks

-c

Knightskye

12-14-2008, 05:55 PM

Bumped.

Pete

12-14-2008, 06:25 PM