Con-Con call #INLegis, Any Other States?

[ClydeCoulter]

Anyone know anything about this? Are any other states attempting the same thing (in cooperation with IN)?

https://twitter.com/INSenateGOP/status/302066424510283776
To clarify, @sendavidlong will introduce legislation to call for this constitutional gathering of states. #INLegis

(Original post in the Indiana forum: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404663-Con-Con-call-in-Indiana&p=4877178#post4877178)

[ClydeCoulter]

Another email I received on the subject


Before you pick a side and lobby, you better understand what you are supporting.

Do you think a con-con can be controlled? These experts say not.

Conference on the Constitutional Convention: Legal Panel


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbJ7NOF3HRU&feature=youtu.be&t=51m40s

[ghengis86]

i've gotten lots of e-mail on this; i haven't taken the time to read them all and all the details. Suffice to say that I don't believe more liberty will be achieved through the ballot box.

[fisharmor]

Something never mentioned in con-con discussions... the chaos resulting from an article V convention would be the perfect opportunity for individual states to peacefully secede.

[ClydeCoulter]

The time for a Constitional Convention IS NOT while the Constitution is being violated to a great extent. I think we need to get more people into the state and federal legislatures that adhere to the current constitutions instead of allowing the abusers to change it.

[sailingaway]

I've seen a bunch of crap on it on the internet, I am completely against it. the people who would choose those who could open wide our Constitutional defenses are the same hacks violating our Constitution repeatedly. I don't want them anywhere near creation of a con con.

[ClydeCoulter]

I've seen a bunch of crap on it on the internet, I am completely against it. the people who would choose those who could open wide our Constitutional defenses are the same hacks violating our Constitution repeatedly. I don't want them anywhere near creation of a con con.

Apparently, state Senator Long (ProTem) of IN is trying to pull it together. How many other states are joining with him on this?

[WM_in_MO]

They would LOVE to re-write the whole thing, wouldn't they?

[ClydeCoulter]

Here's a link to an article on the Indiana Economic Digest.

Indiana Senate president calls for national Constitutional convention
http://indianaeconomicdigest.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubsectionID=124&ArticleID=68588

[KCIndy]

Apparently, state Senator Long (ProTem) of IN is trying to pull it together. How many other states are joining with him on this?

According to this news article, he's spoken with legislators in Tennessee and Texas who find it "appealing."

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/senate-president-pro-tem-david-long-wants-states-to-demand-constitutional-convention


Personally, as a Hoosier myself, I'm really skeptical. I think Long is doing this with genuinely good intentions, but the potential for this to go off the rails - and become a Statist's wet dream - is, in my opinion, very high. I think we're playing with fire on this one.

Here's a snip from the above-linked news story from Indianapolis:


INDIANAPOLIS - A top Indiana lawmaker wants states to demand a constitutional convention where they’d work to limit the federal government’s power.

Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said Thursday that he’s introducing a measure that would call for a convention where states could propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The goal at such a gathering, he said, would be to keep Congress from abusing its powers to tax and regulate interstate commerce........

.....The move comes as Long faces criticism from conservatives who wanted him to allow the Senate to vote on measures he called "blatantly unconstitutional" because they would have Indiana ignore federal laws.

He said his list of complaints with the federal government includes the U.S. Senate’s failure to pass a budget in recent years, President Barack Obama’s health care law and more.

[ClydeCoulter]

As I said, until they follow the Constitution, there's absolutely no need to modify it. Let's get it right where it is today, then we can talk about making our liberty more secure through amendments.

Here's a snipet from someone in one of my meetups that emailed about it:


Long is wrong. A "Convention" is not needed. What is needed is the repeal of the 16th, and 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act.
This should come from the States' initiative. Remove the Central Government's power to tax production, restore the State Legislatures' control of the U.S. Senate, and return to "free banking". Constitutional non-fractional reserve, real money, will restore the balance of power in the "Republic". Central Banking IS central planning. The price of "capital" must be set by a free market and not by 13 people in a closed meeting who can also "create" capital out of thin air. Karl Marx et al said and knew that democracy and central banking forges socialism/fascism. Return to real separation of powers and hard money and folks like Long etc will be selling hot dogs at local baseball games.
I'm not holding my breath, but many like you/us are waking up, spreading the word about where we are headed. The un-payable "national debt" will have to be addressed and there WILL be pain. Shining a light on the "prostitutes" in capitols near and far is a must and ya'll are doing awesome. Thanks.

[ClydeCoulter]

According to this news article, he's spoken with legislators in Tennessee and Texas who find it "appealing."

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/senate-president-pro-tem-david-long-wants-states-to-demand-constitutional-convention


Personally, as a Hoosier myself, I'm really skeptical. I think Long is doing this with genuinely good intentions, but the potential for this to go off the rails - and become a Statist's wet dream - is, in my opinion, very high. I think we're playing with fire on this one.

Here's a snip from the above-linked news story from Indianapolis:

They can't sell it except that the rhetoric sound like good intentions. I'm skeptical about his actual intentions, especially since they are holding good nullification legislation in committee because they don't understand states rights (or so they speak).

[Zippyjuan]

According to the US Constitution, a Con Con cannot rewrite the entire document. What is can do is propose amendments or changes and those changes would have to be aproved by two thirds of all states before they could take effect. With how politically divided things are right now I can't see two thirds agreeing on anything.

From the Indianopolis article:

INDIANAPOLIS - A top Indiana lawmaker wants states to demand a constitutional convention where they’d work to limit the federal government’s power.

Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said Thursday that he’s introducing a measure that would call for a convention where states could propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution.


Amendments can also be proposed without calling for a convention. The same 2/3rds aproval would still be required.

[ClydeCoulter]

You dont' make me feel any better about it Zippy. Who says that they will abide by the Constitution in the matter of changing the Constitution?

John Birch Society article on it:

http://www.jbs.org/legislation/the-ultimate-argument-against-an-article-v-constitutional-convention


Since neither side, with a few notable exceptions, on this Con-Con issue wants a runaway convention, much of the rhetoric centers on the likelihood of a runaway Article V constitutional convention. In recent years one prominent Con-Con proponent has argued that a close historical study of how states chose and instructed delegates to various conventions in the founding era, including the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and how these conventions were conducted, proves that there is no danger of a runaway constitutional convention in our day.

This argument is not very persuasive. How can we be sure that the customs and procedures of 200 years ago regarding constitutional conventions will be adhered to today when large portions of the Constitution itself are no longer obeyed?

[Melissa]

It passed..does anyone know what Ron Paul's thoughts on this are?

[sailingaway]

It passed..does anyone know what Ron Paul's thoughts on this are?

I'm pretty sure he thinks it sucks but he would respect procedure because he believes in the rule of law. I think I saw an old comment on it. I'll look.

[Melissa]

I'm pretty sure he thinks it sucks but he would respect procedure because he believes in the rule of law. I think I saw an old comment on it. I'll look.

Thanks so much I need to send some things to a few good people that voted for this and show them why it is not good

[sailingaway]

From Ron at some point, per this blog:


Reply directly from Rep.Ron Paul relating to a Constitutional Convention, and/or other ways to achieve an amendment:


Dear Friend:

Thank you for expressing your concern that attempting to roll back the dangerous expansion of government power through constitutional amendment will bring about a constitutional convention. You are indeed correct that a modern constitutional convention, given today's political climate, would be dangerous to liberty by leaving us open to sudden, sweeping change in our government.

I must point out, however, that initiating or passing an amendment is not calling for a constitutional convention, is not an invitation to do so, and is not nearly as dangerous. During the amendment process, we are not any more open to the dangers of a convention than at any other time. We have seen twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution without a convention being called. Amendments are the constitutional and safe way to change our form of government because the particular and limited issue addressed by an amendment requires a long, involved process to change the Constitution for very limited and specific ends. With each proposed amendment there is ample time to point out any apparent threats to liberty and warn our fellow citizens.

Contrast this to the current situation where almost anything can become law if a mere, momentary majority in Congress and the current president agrees. The amendment process is the proper, constitutional way to change our government's power, rather than by arbitrary lawmaking or regulatory rulemaking. Thank you again for your vigilance and dedication to liberty.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

http://targetfreedom.com/bills-in-congress/ron-paul-on-constitutional-convention/

[sailingaway]

Thanks so much I need to send some things to a few good people that voted for this and show them why it is not good

I just posted a response quoted a blogger said he received from Ron.

[Melissa]

I just posted a response quoted a blogger said he received from Ron. Thanks so much not sure if that will work but will try and keep looking for more info thanks..

[ClydeCoulter]

Indiana Senate vote 32-18 for con-con call.

It still has to pass the Indiana House right?