FrankRep
05-19-2011, 08:55 PM
http://www.kochsoft.com/tna/concon.jpg (http://www.jbs.org/STOPaCon-Con)
Choose Freedom - Stop A Con-Con on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/ChooseFreedom.STOPaConCon).
Stop Missouri's Con-Con Calls (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=24950&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us)
On April 20, 2011, two House Concurrent Resolutions calling for Congress to authorize a constitutional convention (Con-Con), were placed on the Informal Calendar of the state legislature for a third reading and likely vote on the floor of the Missouri House of Representatives.
The first bill, HCR 9, known as a ‘repeal amendment,’ makes application to the Congress of the United States to “call an amendment convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the limited purpose of a constitutional amendment that permits the repeal of any federal law or regulation by a vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures…”
The second bill, HCR 19, known as a ‘National Debt Relief Amendment’ (NDRA), makes application to the Congress of the United States to, “as provided for in Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for an amendments convention to be called for the purpose of proposing an amendment which shall provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the Legislatures of the separate States…”
However noble these proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution may be in their attempts to restore sound fiscal restraint to Washington, the calling of an Article V Con-Con, also known as an amendments convention, is not the proper route that should be taken to make or propose such amendments to the Constitution. The safe way to amend the Constitution is for Congress itself to propose the amendments by a two-thirds vote in both House and Senate. This is how all 27 existing amendments have been added so far.
The last time that such a convention was convened was in Philadelphia in 1787 when General George Washington, James Madison, and the various delegates from the thirteen United States assembled to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation -- the law of the land at the time.
Although called to strengthen and centralize the national government, the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was convened to amend the Articles of Confederation rather than replace them. We were lucky then, seeing as the convention resulted in such an excellent Constitution. We were also fortunate to have had enlightened statesmen and drafters, such as James Madison, who understood the Lockean virtues and principles of individual liberty and limited government. Looking back, who among us today comes close to exemplifying the virtues of our Founding Fathers?
The answer is too few and far between, if any at all. The proposal for a second Con-Con promoted by so-called conservatives, would likely result in a runaway convention in which extremist or revolutionary elements could highjack the convention and alter the Constitution to include harmful amendments, such as “second generation” or “positive” socialist rights while curtailing our nation’s traditional negative rights that protect our liberties from the government.
What we need is not for the States to revise the Constitution, but rather to restore and enforce it as our Founding Fathers originally intended (for more information, click here (http://www.jbs.org/action/downloads/freedom-campaign-downloads/140-states-should-enforce-not-revise-the-constitution/download) for a free PDF article download).
Considering that both of these bills have passed their first two readings, the likelihood of its passage by the State House and entry into the State Senate is high and should not be taken lightly. You now have the ability to help stop Missouri from calling upon Congress to authorize such a convention. Contact your State Representative and State Senator now (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=24950&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us) and urge them to vote NAY and oppose the passage of HCR 9 and HCR 19 in the House and also the Senate, in the event that they pass in the House.
Example Email:
On April 20, 2011, two House Concurrent Resolutions, HCR 9 and HCR 19, were placed on the Informal Calendar of the state legislature for a third reading and likely vote on the floor of the Missouri House of Representatives. The purpose of HCR 9 is to propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which would grant the separate States the legal authority and ability to repeal federal laws or regulations by a two-thirds vote of the state legislatures. The purpose of HCR 19 is to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require any increase in the federal debt to be approved by a majority of the State legislatures.
Unfortunately, both HCR 9 and HCR 19 have one major flaw; they both call for Congress to convene a constitutional convention (Con-Con) to propose these amendments, pursuant to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, rather than having Congress adopt the proposed amendments.
The key provisions of HCR 9 are:
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-sixth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby apply and make application to the Congress of the United States to call an amendment convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the limited purpose of a constitutional amendment that permits the repeal of any federal law or regulation by a vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures, and the Missouri Delegation to such convention, when called, shall propose the following amendment:
'Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.'"
The key provision of HCR 19 is:
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amendments convention contemplated by this application shall be entirely focused upon and exclusively limited to the subject matter of proposing for ratification an amendment to the Constitution providing that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the Legislatures of the separate States..."
The case against calling such an amendments convention, also referred to as an Article V constitutional convention, in a nutshell is that a large number of constitutional scholars agree that an Article V constitutional convention cannot be restricted as to what amendments would be considered and ultimately proposed.
In the event of a constitutional convention, the purpose of which is to "propose amendments," the new amendment(s) would then be submitted to the states (either state legislatures or special state conventions as designated by Congress according to the Constitution, but possibly some other bodies proposed by the constitutional convention itself following the precedent of our original Constitutional Convention in specifying the means for the ratification of the Constitution) for ratification.
Although three-fourths of the states would have to ratify an amendment for it to become part of the Constitution, there is still the all-too-real risk that a harmful amendment or series of amendments could be ratified due to the extraordinary influence exerted on American voters and their representatives by powerful elites in our news media, government, educational institutions, and foundations.
Only a few state legislatures have called for a Con-Con in the past 30 years, and legislators in 15 states have become so thoroughly convinced of the dangers of a constitutional convention that they have voted to rescind (take back) all of their previous Con-Con calls.
You can find out more information about this issue at http://www.JBS.org/STOPaCon-Con
Please be sure to vote NAY on both HCR 9 and HCR 19.
Email Your State Reps!
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=24950&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us
Choose Freedom - Stop A Con-Con on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/ChooseFreedom.STOPaConCon).
Stop Missouri's Con-Con Calls (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=24950&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us)
On April 20, 2011, two House Concurrent Resolutions calling for Congress to authorize a constitutional convention (Con-Con), were placed on the Informal Calendar of the state legislature for a third reading and likely vote on the floor of the Missouri House of Representatives.
The first bill, HCR 9, known as a ‘repeal amendment,’ makes application to the Congress of the United States to “call an amendment convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the limited purpose of a constitutional amendment that permits the repeal of any federal law or regulation by a vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures…”
The second bill, HCR 19, known as a ‘National Debt Relief Amendment’ (NDRA), makes application to the Congress of the United States to, “as provided for in Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for an amendments convention to be called for the purpose of proposing an amendment which shall provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the Legislatures of the separate States…”
However noble these proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution may be in their attempts to restore sound fiscal restraint to Washington, the calling of an Article V Con-Con, also known as an amendments convention, is not the proper route that should be taken to make or propose such amendments to the Constitution. The safe way to amend the Constitution is for Congress itself to propose the amendments by a two-thirds vote in both House and Senate. This is how all 27 existing amendments have been added so far.
The last time that such a convention was convened was in Philadelphia in 1787 when General George Washington, James Madison, and the various delegates from the thirteen United States assembled to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation -- the law of the land at the time.
Although called to strengthen and centralize the national government, the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was convened to amend the Articles of Confederation rather than replace them. We were lucky then, seeing as the convention resulted in such an excellent Constitution. We were also fortunate to have had enlightened statesmen and drafters, such as James Madison, who understood the Lockean virtues and principles of individual liberty and limited government. Looking back, who among us today comes close to exemplifying the virtues of our Founding Fathers?
The answer is too few and far between, if any at all. The proposal for a second Con-Con promoted by so-called conservatives, would likely result in a runaway convention in which extremist or revolutionary elements could highjack the convention and alter the Constitution to include harmful amendments, such as “second generation” or “positive” socialist rights while curtailing our nation’s traditional negative rights that protect our liberties from the government.
What we need is not for the States to revise the Constitution, but rather to restore and enforce it as our Founding Fathers originally intended (for more information, click here (http://www.jbs.org/action/downloads/freedom-campaign-downloads/140-states-should-enforce-not-revise-the-constitution/download) for a free PDF article download).
Considering that both of these bills have passed their first two readings, the likelihood of its passage by the State House and entry into the State Senate is high and should not be taken lightly. You now have the ability to help stop Missouri from calling upon Congress to authorize such a convention. Contact your State Representative and State Senator now (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=24950&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us) and urge them to vote NAY and oppose the passage of HCR 9 and HCR 19 in the House and also the Senate, in the event that they pass in the House.
Example Email:
On April 20, 2011, two House Concurrent Resolutions, HCR 9 and HCR 19, were placed on the Informal Calendar of the state legislature for a third reading and likely vote on the floor of the Missouri House of Representatives. The purpose of HCR 9 is to propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which would grant the separate States the legal authority and ability to repeal federal laws or regulations by a two-thirds vote of the state legislatures. The purpose of HCR 19 is to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require any increase in the federal debt to be approved by a majority of the State legislatures.
Unfortunately, both HCR 9 and HCR 19 have one major flaw; they both call for Congress to convene a constitutional convention (Con-Con) to propose these amendments, pursuant to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, rather than having Congress adopt the proposed amendments.
The key provisions of HCR 9 are:
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-sixth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby apply and make application to the Congress of the United States to call an amendment convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the limited purpose of a constitutional amendment that permits the repeal of any federal law or regulation by a vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures, and the Missouri Delegation to such convention, when called, shall propose the following amendment:
'Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.'"
The key provision of HCR 19 is:
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amendments convention contemplated by this application shall be entirely focused upon and exclusively limited to the subject matter of proposing for ratification an amendment to the Constitution providing that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the Legislatures of the separate States..."
The case against calling such an amendments convention, also referred to as an Article V constitutional convention, in a nutshell is that a large number of constitutional scholars agree that an Article V constitutional convention cannot be restricted as to what amendments would be considered and ultimately proposed.
In the event of a constitutional convention, the purpose of which is to "propose amendments," the new amendment(s) would then be submitted to the states (either state legislatures or special state conventions as designated by Congress according to the Constitution, but possibly some other bodies proposed by the constitutional convention itself following the precedent of our original Constitutional Convention in specifying the means for the ratification of the Constitution) for ratification.
Although three-fourths of the states would have to ratify an amendment for it to become part of the Constitution, there is still the all-too-real risk that a harmful amendment or series of amendments could be ratified due to the extraordinary influence exerted on American voters and their representatives by powerful elites in our news media, government, educational institutions, and foundations.
Only a few state legislatures have called for a Con-Con in the past 30 years, and legislators in 15 states have become so thoroughly convinced of the dangers of a constitutional convention that they have voted to rescind (take back) all of their previous Con-Con calls.
You can find out more information about this issue at http://www.JBS.org/STOPaCon-Con
Please be sure to vote NAY on both HCR 9 and HCR 19.
Email Your State Reps!
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=24950&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us