By Nancy Thorner -
My ConCon article of January 11, 2016, Misguided Conservatives Ramp up Efforts for Constitutional Convention, explains just how enemies of the Constitution are targeting 2017 for passage of the Convention of States (COS). Enemies like big financier of global fascism, George Soros, are gearing up to exploit the Republican majorities in state legislatures.
Unfortunately, many otherwise well-educated and well-meaning conservatives have succumbed to supporting Con Con. Conservatives should shudder at the thought of a convention populated by activists, who endowed with power have a Soros credit card in their pocket and a commitment to “social justice” as their purpose.
Radio talk show host, Mark Levin started his push for a constitutional convention several years ago as the only way to restore the balance of federalism in our Republic. Among those who have followed Levin's lead are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Alan West. They have been led to believe that a Constitution Convention is the last hope to reform the federal government from its degenerate, bloated, imperial structure back to its smaller republican roots
In that the other side has bought off many key politicians with massive campaign contributions, attorney Andy Schlafly of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, who also serves as general counsel of the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, and is son of the late Eagle Forum founder, Phyllis Schlafly, formulated a coalition letter that builds on grassroots activism as the best way to counteract the other side.
Schlafly's goal is for 50-100 groups and individuals to sign onto the letter. Through publicizing the letter, Schlafly hopes politicians will think twice before choosing mega-donors over the Constitution and grassroots activists.
"We have the Constitution on our side, and we will win," Schlafly said.
Below is a draft of the letter for feedback and signing on:
Coalition letter against Convention of States and in Support of our U.S. Constitution
The undersigned organizations and individuals stand in defense of our U.S. Constitution, and oppose all attempts under its Article V to convene a new constitutional convention ("Con Con").
State legislation is being pushed by undisclosed donors to force Congress to convene a Con Con supposedly "to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government." Such a convention would open the door to eliminate border security. It would inevitably seek to repeal the Second Amendment while inserting a new requirement for taxpayer-funded abortion. Article V expressly allows the adoption of amendments, plural, without limitation, so a Con Con would probably vastly expand federal power in many undesirable ways, such as expanding federal authority over churches and schools.
Tremendous irrevocable harm would result from a Con Con because it would allow numerous changes to our Constitution with the national media guiding the way.
Justice Antonin Scalia condemned the proposals for an Article V convention as a "horrible idea" months before he unexpectedly passed away. Phyllis Schlafly spoke out strongly against all Article V convention ideas, explaining that they would be "playing Russian Roulette with the Constitution." Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote against the mere suggestion of holding a Con Con. Second Amendment groups like the Gun Owners of America fully oppose it. The Founders themselves were very much against holding another constitutional convention, and many of the greatest American statesmen throughout history spoke out passionately against the idea.
In July 2016 in Cleveland, the Republican Party national platform committee rejected, nearly unanimously, an attempt to adopt a resolution calling for an Article V constitutional convention to enact a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Now the media want to repeal the Electoral College, which properly requires geographical diversity before a presidential candidate can win. Globalists and the media also want to repeal the Treaty Clause, which protects our Nation against harmful treaties with foreign powers by requiring the difficult-to-attain 2/3rds support in the Senate.
The Constitution has never been the problem, and our political leaders should be defending the Constitution rather than falsely pretending that it needs to be changed. Politicians and courts that do not abide by the Constitution today will not abide by a rewritten one tomorrow.
Promoters of the misnamed "Convention of States," which is merely a repackaged Article V "Con Con," fail to comply with state requirements for fiscal notes to disclose the economic impact of their legislation. Reducing federal power to secure our borders, as invited by the Convention of States legislation, would impose billions of dollars in new costs on states. States would be compelled to dole out more entitlements and spend far more combating crime as a result of reduced federal power to stop illegal immigration.
Our U.S. Constitution is the longest, most successful constitution in the history of mankind. It is not for sale, and it is not broken. It should not be "fixed" by secret billionaires having their own hidden agenda of globalism and open borders, views that they conceal with broad platitudes like "limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government."
Far too much is at stake to gamble away the future of our Constitution and our Nation on a runaway constitutional convention. Please speak out against any and all proposals to convene an Article V Convention, including the Convention of States resolutions, and please demand that the undisclosed donors pushing this "horrible idea" identify themselves and disclose their real agenda.
Andrew Schlafly, Esq.
Phyllis Schlafly Eagles
Andy Schlafly will add names to his coalition letter in the order received. Contact Mr. Schlafly at [email protected] to add your name.
What are the odds that the room would be full of people even more patriotic and liberty-minded and brilliant than the 55 who participated in the original Constitutional Convention?
Unless we are 100% certain that the convention would be made up of people at least equal to the giants of 1787, a concon would be suicidal.
I simply don’t understand the fear of amendments to our constitution? How can you say “I want to defend our Constitution from Article V of the the Constitution”? So you want to protect the Constitution from itself? No, I am in favor of Article V Convention of States because I want to protect the Constitution from liberal politicians in both the Republican and Democrat parties. We have seen how our Constitution has been under attack by those craven for centralized power, and we need to bring power back to the states. Once again, a convention of states is not a “concon”, it is a constitutional method to amend our Constitution. I don’t understand how some of these self proclaimed conservatives put more trust in federal politicians than state legislatures. I don’t get it.