FrankRep
05-19-2011, 09:06 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 Oregon's Con-Con Call (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=24835&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us)
Currently pending in the Finance and Revenue Committee of the Oregon State Senate is State Senator Boquist’s bill SJM 13, which according to its bill summary calls for the Congress of the United States to “call convention for proposing amendment to Constitution of United States providing that increase in federal debt requires approval of majority of state legislatures.”
However noble this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be in its attempt to restore power and sovereignty to the states by checking the Leviathan that is Washington, the calling of a general Article V convention is not the proper route that should be taken to make or propose such an amendment to the Constitution.
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 Constitutional Convention (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).
Although pending in the Finance and Revenue Committee, we should not risk the passage of a Con-Con call no matter how appealing it may be. You now have the ability to help stop Oregon from calling upon Congress to authorize such a convention. Contact your State Senator now (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=24835&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us) and urge him or her not to support the passage of SJM 13, and if does come to a vote on the floor to vote NAY on the bill.
Example Email:
Currently pending in the Finance and Revenue Committee of the Oregon State Senate is bill SJM 13, which if added to the Constitution would require that a majority of the separate State legislatures approve any increase in the federal debt limit that Congress authorizes, giving the States the final say on debt limit increases and helping to curb the big government spending policies of Washington. Unfortunately, SJM 13 has one major flaw; it calls on Congress to convene a constitutional convention (Con-Con) to propose this amendment pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution.
The key provision of SJM 13 is:
"Be it resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon ... That the Seventy-sixth Assembly of the State of Oregon ... As provided in Article V of the Constitution of the United States, respectfully applies for a convention for proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States for the purpose of proposing an amendment providing that an increase in the federal debt requires approval of a majority of the legislatures of the several 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 16 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 SJM 13.
Email Your State Reps!
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=24835&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us
Choose Freedom - Stop A Con-Con on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/ChooseFreedom.STOPaConCon).
Stop Oregon's Con-Con Call (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=24835&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us)
Currently pending in the Finance and Revenue Committee of the Oregon State Senate is State Senator Boquist’s bill SJM 13, which according to its bill summary calls for the Congress of the United States to “call convention for proposing amendment to Constitution of United States providing that increase in federal debt requires approval of majority of state legislatures.”
However noble this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be in its attempt to restore power and sovereignty to the states by checking the Leviathan that is Washington, the calling of a general Article V convention is not the proper route that should be taken to make or propose such an amendment to the Constitution.
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 Constitutional Convention (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).
Although pending in the Finance and Revenue Committee, we should not risk the passage of a Con-Con call no matter how appealing it may be. You now have the ability to help stop Oregon from calling upon Congress to authorize such a convention. Contact your State Senator now (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=24835&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us) and urge him or her not to support the passage of SJM 13, and if does come to a vote on the floor to vote NAY on the bill.
Example Email:
Currently pending in the Finance and Revenue Committee of the Oregon State Senate is bill SJM 13, which if added to the Constitution would require that a majority of the separate State legislatures approve any increase in the federal debt limit that Congress authorizes, giving the States the final say on debt limit increases and helping to curb the big government spending policies of Washington. Unfortunately, SJM 13 has one major flaw; it calls on Congress to convene a constitutional convention (Con-Con) to propose this amendment pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution.
The key provision of SJM 13 is:
"Be it resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon ... That the Seventy-sixth Assembly of the State of Oregon ... As provided in Article V of the Constitution of the United States, respectfully applies for a convention for proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States for the purpose of proposing an amendment providing that an increase in the federal debt requires approval of a majority of the legislatures of the several 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 16 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 SJM 13.
Email Your State Reps!
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=24835&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us