Search the Community

This is a very disturbing email I received. Coming from the state of Kansas legislators it's even more scary! Kansas Council for Freedom and Enterprise It's a new year. 2016 is upon us. By now, all of that "Obama Rollback" GOP leadership has been talking about should be humming right along, right? Especially after the Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate and the ousting of House Speaker John Boehner. Well it's not. The Republican Congress remains as committed as ever to bailing out Barack Obama, most notably by helping Obama and the Democrats ram through a $1.8 TRILLION tax and spend bill. Despite yet another massive failure from Congress, there are a few misguided conservative "leaders" across America who want to give them control over amending or even re-writing the U.S. Constitution! You read that right. There are actually conservatives out there who support handing over our nation's Founding Document to the very same Republican Congress that funds Barack Obama's agenda. These confused conservative souls want to initiate what's called an Article V Constitutional Convention, or "Con Con" for short. As if giving this Congress power to re-write the Constitution they're already ignoring will somehow fix the problem! The idea of trusting the politicians in Congress with our Constitution is patently absurd. That’s why it’s critical you call your Kansas state representative immediately and demand they vote against H.C.R. 5010. Click here for contact information. Fortunately, some serious conservative leaders are taking the Constitutional Convention "movement" head-on. Phyllis Schlafly vocally opposes an Article V Convention, stating that any such convention will be "chaos." You may have heard of Ms. Schlafly, the legendary Constitutional attorney and founder of Eagle Forum who has been fighting the liberal wing of the Republican party since the 1940s. Her opposition to a Con Con is well-reasoned and dispassionate. Firstly — and perhaps most importantly — Ms. Schlafly notes that the small set of conservatives aren't the real force behind a Con Con. It's the Liberals! She notes: "One liberal professor - in the pages The New York Times - calls our Constitution 'imbecilic.' Another claims it contains 'archaic' and 'evil provisions.' One even urges us to 'rewrite the Second Amendment.' Out of exasperation with Barack Obama's flouting of the Constitution … a few conservative authors and pundits have joined these left-wing opponents of our Constitution. Together they are promoting a national convention to propose amendments to the Constitution." So because the Left can't be trusted to run government, these conservatives want to give the power to re-write our Constitution … TO THE LEFT. That just makes zero sense. Supporters of a Con Con also argue that the states will somehow be able to control what happens at a convention. But Ms. Schlafly, the Constitutional scholar, eviscerates that claim. Convention supporters, Ms. Schlafly asserts, "…are fooling themselves when they suggest that Article V creates a path to bypass Congress with a 'convention of states.' In a convention setting, the U.S. Congress would get a major say in how the process will work. The only power the states have under Article V is the opportunity to submit an 'application' (petition) asking Congress to call a convention." In fact, the Constitution makes it quite clear that the Congress will have the lion's share of the say in how a convention will proceed. Since the Congress will control a convention, Ms. Schlafly is right to question what that will look like. "If Congress ever decides to act, Article V gives Congress exclusive power to issue the 'Call' for a convention to propose 'amendments' (plural). The key question is this: how will Congress count valid applications? The answer is, we don't know, and so far Congress has ignored them anyway." So what does a "call" look like? And will Congress take into consideration any of the states' requests to follow the Constitution? Congress has jurisdiction over all of the valid applications submitted by the states, and has purview to dictate all other parameters surrounding a convention, such as: Where and when a convention will be held Who is eligible to be a delegate (will current office-holders be eligible?) Wow delegates will be apportioned How expenses will be paid Who the chairman will be How convention delegates will be apportioned That sounds like a lot of leeway to give the Congress which funds Obama's agenda with trillions in deficit spending. Ms. Schlafly shares similar concerns, and has a few more questions. "Do you trust the U.S. Congress to determine the rules for how our Constitution will be rewritten? Do you want California or New York deciding how the U.S. Constitution should read? With our U.S. Congress involved, the Article V "Convention of States" process is a prescription for political chaos." Her question about California and New York re-writing the Constitution is scary. As high-population states likely to get more delegates than anyone else, they would be heavy hitters at a Con Con. Can you imagine California - a state with a Democrat supermajority - playing a major role in rewriting the Constitution? Check out Schlafly's questions about apportionment — or how many delegates each state will get: "The most important question to which there is no answer is this: how will convention delegates be apportioned? Will each state have one vote (no matter how many delegates it sends), which was the rule in the 1787 Philadelphia convention? Or will the convention be apportioned according to population (like Congress or the Electoral College)? Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision. If Congress decides apportionment will be determined by population, more populous states will control the outcome." Ms. Schlafly also makes a strong point about whether we'll even be able to control what happens at a convention even if we get the rules favorable to conservatives, something that is far from likely. She references an incident at a Democrat Party convention where the Chair gaveled down a delegate offering an amendment and ruled in opposition to his amendment - even though the majority of the delegates in the room clearly supported the delegate: "To see how a convention chairman wielding the gavel can manipulate outcomes, take for instance the 2012 Democratic National Convention. A delegate tried to add a reference to God to the party platform, but the chairman ruthlessly called the vote wrong even though we all saw on television that the 'Noes' won the vote." Republicans may also remember the 2012 Republican National Convention where Speaker Boehner gaveled down grassroots opposition in accordance with his teleprompter script, yet again disenfranchising conservatives. All these facts from Constitutional veteran Phyllis Schlafly should give any thinking lover of liberty pause about supporting a Con Con. That’s why it’s critical you call your Kansas state representative immediately and demand they vote against H.C.R. 5010. Click here for contact information. But Phyllis isn't alone in her opposition. State-level Campaign for Liberty organizations all across America are taking a coordinated stand against this hair-brained Con Con scheme. They know that handing our Constitution over to Leftists like George Soros and Michael Bloomberg could do irreparable damage to liberty. After noting that changing the Constitution does nothing to fix any problems, they go on to say in a recent email: "However, there is an even bigger problem with the Article V Convention process. Simply put, because it has never been attempted, none of the self-proclaimed 'experts' know what will happen at a Convention if they get their way. The Constitution itself doesn't spell out the convention process or how delegates should be chosen. So progressive activists will be able to use their money and influence to affect the entire process. Several George Soros and Bloomberg-funded left-wing front groups are actively clamoring for a Constitutional Convention, including the Center for Media and Democracy, Code Pink, the Sierra Club, and the secretive Wolf-PAC. Soros and his pals want to use their dominance over powerful liberal states like California, Illinois and New York to limit free speech or repeal the individual's right to bear arms. ANY Article V Convention proposal would put all of our rights on the chopping block, because it gives unelected, unaccountable delegates free rein to rewrite the entire Constitution." Good sense from both Campaign for Liberty state organizations and Phyllis Schlafly at Eagle Forum. However, the biggest grassroots opponent to a Con Con is the 4-million-member National Association for Gun Rights. In series of recent emails, National Association for Gun Rights President Dudley Brown presented an airtight argument against an Article V Convention: "The real question is whether changing the Constitution will solve any problems at all. Everyone agrees politicians and judges who refuse to obey the Constitution are the problem. Will these corrupted officials magically start obeying the Constitution just because it's been amended? Throughout this discussion [on a ConCon], not one Convention supporter has been able to answer this question. Often, they don't even try. Instead they start wailing about how bad things are, how there are almost no solutions left, how America is doomed unless we surrender to a Convention. Then they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of using 'scare tactics.' Somehow they miss the irony. After shrieking that the sky is falling, they want everyone to believe the strict construction Constitutionalists like the National Association for Gun Rights are the ones playing Chicken Little. I've said it before, and with the incoherent ruckus coming from the pro-Convention leaders, it bears repeating. Why would any lover of liberty want a bunch of modern politicians, bureaucrats, judges and lawyers tampering with the very bulwark of our freedom?" Dudley is right to have deep reservations. He gives the inside scoop on just how ridiculous the "conservative" Con Con supporters are when they claim a convention is "safe": "Last month, self-proclaimed conservatives at the Assembly of State Legislatures (ASL) held a 'pre-convention' in Salt Lake City. Despite their misleading name, the so-called 'Assembly of State Legislatures' is nothing more than a mismatched gathering of individual state representatives and senators. Their stated purpose is to 'debate and vote on a drafted set of rules under which a convention for proposing amendments would function.' ConCon supporters are legitimately concerned that leftists like Hillarious Clinton and George Soros would take over if a real Constitutional Convention actually came to pass. Clinton, Soros and their uber-leftists allies are already supporting a ConCon for the express purpose of 'fixing' things like the Second Amendment. It's a very real possibility. Now the 'brilliant minds' among conservative ConCon supporters say they have it all worked out. Without any Constitutional grounds or historical precedent whatsoever, they have invented the notion that they can control the entire process simply by writing all the rules beforehand. But here's the kicker: These misguided ConCon supporters couldn't even control their own little pre-convention in Salt Lake City last month! The Salt Lake pre-convention, held November 11-13, 2015, was supposed to adopt rules that will somehow control any future Constitutional Convention. Instead the so-called 'Assembly of State Legislatures' dissolved into multiple warring factions. Some wanted to require a two-thirds majority on all major questions. Others fought tooth-and-nail for simple majority. Still other groups had their own axe to grind. It was a total circus. After much rancorous debate, the whole thing fell apart as a bunch of the self-appointed 'delegates' stormed out a day early. And these are the people who claim they can control a real Constitutional Convention, where your most precious rights hang in the balance!" So the very conservatives who are assuring us all that they can control a Con Con can't even control their own proceedings! Dudley Brown and the four million members at the National Association for Gun rights stand firmly against all Article V Con Con efforts. I couldn't agree with them more on this issue. Please call your Kansas state representative immediately and demand they vote against H.C.R. 5010. Click here for contact information. In short, there is no way we can know what is going to happen at a convention. In fact, it's a safe bet the career politicians in Washington, D.C. will do everything in their power to freeze conservatives out of the process yet again. But don't just take my word for it. Take it from Phyllis Schlafly: "The whole Article V 'Convention of States' process is a prescription for political chaos. Alas, I don't see any George Washingtons, James Madisons or Ben Franklins around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I'm worried about the men who think they can." The Kansas Council for Freedom and Enterprise stands against the misguided effort to bring on an Article V Constitutional Convention. I'm proud to stand with Schlafly, Brown and millions more honest Americans in support of our Founding Document. I hope you'll join us. For Freedom and Enterprise, Theodore A. Patterson Executive Director Kansas Council for Freedom and Enterprise P.S. It's 2016, and the U.S. Congress is still bent on spending all our children's future earnings and giving away their liberty. Now a few confused conservative "leaders" want to hand a pen to this Congress and let them re-write our Constitution with an Article V Convention, or "Con Con." Fortunately, constitutional attorney and conservative legend Phyllis Schlafly has taken a vocal stand AGAINST this lunacy. In fact, Ms. Schlafly has called the whole Con Con trope a recipe for "chaos." Phyllis Schlafly understands that Leftists like George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and the New York Times ALSO want to re-write the Constitution. Ms. Schlafly knows that the Congress - and NOT the states - will control how any convention will proceed. "…[Convention supporters]are fooling themselves when they suggest that Article V creates a path to bypass Congress with a 'Convention of States.'" And Schlafly is right to question all of the unknowns that Congress might foist upon any convention process were it to move forward. "Article V gives Congress exclusive power to issue the 'Call' for a convention to propose 'amendments' (plural). The key question is this: how will Congress count valid applications? The answer is, we don't know, and so far Congress has ignored them anyway." Even more alarming, a Convention could put our Constitution in the hands of delegates primarily from Liberal bastions like California and New York! "The most important question to which there is no answer is this: how will convention delegates be apportioned? Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision. If Congress decides apportionment will be determined by population, more populous states will control the outcome." And Phyllis is not alone in opposing a Con Con. The National Association for Gun Rights and their four million members are staunchly opposed to a Con Con. NAGR President Dudley Brown recently wrote in a series of hard-hitting emails: "The real question is whether changing the Constitution will solve any problems at all. Everyone agrees politicians and judges who refuse to obey the Constitution are the problem. Will these corrupted officials magically start obeying the Constitution just because it's been amended?" Dudley also pointed out that the conservatives who say they can control a Con Con can't even control their own events: The Salt Lake pre-convention, held November 11-13, 2015, was supposed to adopt rules that will somehow control any future Constitutional Convention. Instead the so-called 'Assembly of State Legislatures' dissolved into multiple warring factions... After much rancorous debate, the whole thing fell apart as a bunch of the self-appointed 'delegates' stormed out a day early. And these are the people who claim they can control a real Constitutional Convention, where your most precious rights hang in the balance! Along with the National Association for Gun Rights, state-level Campaign for Liberty organizations all across America have launched a coordinated effort to stop this dangerous Con Con scheme. They know that handing our Constitution over to Leftists like George Soros and Michael Bloomberg could damage to liberty beyond repair. Campaign for liberty recent wrote: "Several George Soros and Bloomberg-funded left-wing front groups are actively clamoring for a Constitutional Convention, including the Center for Media and Democracy, Code Pink, the Sierra Club, and the secretive Wolf-PAC. Soros and his pals want to use their dominance over powerful liberal states like California, Illinois and New York to limit free speech or repeal the individual's right to bear arms. ANY Article V Convention proposal would put all of our rights on the chopping block, because it gives unelected, unaccountable delegates free rein to rewrite the entire Constitution." So listen to Phyllis's words of caution about an Article V Convention: "The whole Article V "Convention of States" process is a prescription for political chaos." Join us in opposing this dangerous and misguided effort to rewrite the Constitution! Please call your legislator today! Please note: Kansas Council for Freedom and Enterprise (KsCFE), paid for this communication and is solely responsible for its content. KsCFE is a project of the National Council for Freedom and Enterprise (NCFE), an IRS 501©4 non-profit organization. Donations are not tax deductible as charitable contributions or as business deductions. 101 Washington Street Falmouth, VA 22405 | (540)371-7077 www.NationalCouncilforFreedom.org Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.