By Jackie Patru
(revised and updated January, 2001)
Under article V of the Constitution, our founding fathers established two methods for future generations to add amendments to the Constitution.
Under method 1: Two-thirds of both houses of Congress can propose an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states ratify it… or not.
Under method 2: Two-thirds (34) of the states call for a federal constitutional convention, and then three-fourths of the states ratify whatever amendments are proposed by the convention.
Notice that ratification by states does not specify state legislatures !
Those who insist there’s nothing to fear from a con-con maintain that even if it were to get out of control it would take three-fourths of the states to ratify it. They ask, “Would 38 states ratify a bad amendment?” At first glance, it seems unlikely… but three facts are never mentioned by con-con advocates, and these are crucially important points:
1) The convention could abolish or alter the rules of ratification as was done in 1787.2) Article V authorizes Congress to decide on the mode of ratification: either by State Legislatures or by special State Ratifying Conventions. In 1933 the 21st Amendment – lifting the prohibition on alcohol – was ratified in special state conventions, thus circumventing the legislatures of the states.
[That incident bares further research. It appears that the BATF was created as a result of the implementing legislation for Amendment 21. Maybe prohibition was instituted to create the ‘crime’ of distilling, distributing, and consuming alcohol to justify the need for the “revenuers” and the ensuing crime bills. Maybe Title 27, the Code of Federal Regulations used by the IRS is part of all that, since the IRS is under Title 26 and there is no CFR for Title 26. Whatever the case, the proponents of the 21st Amendment, circumvented the States in favor of ratifying conventions to get the amendment ratified because they knew they wouldn’t get ratification by the state legislatures.]
3) Advocates of a convention deceptively offer false assurances that a convention can be limited to a single subject. Some state legislators feel safe with their state’s call for a con-con because they have added to it a “null and void” clause if the convention not be limited to the specific purpose of proposing an amendment to balance the budget.
Article V authorizes the states only to apply for a convention. Once underway, the convention makes its own rules and could reject any or all restrictions on its activity and assert its supreme power by virtue of its direct authority from the Constitution.
All 27 amendments to our Constitution originated in Congress and were then ratified by the states. The second method, by federal convention, has never been used because it places too much power in the hands of few. The first and only convention was held in 1787, during which our Constitution was framed.
In 1787 the founders had convinced the people a Conference of States should be held for the purpose of “making some changes” in the Articles of Confederation. The delegates to the Conference in Philadelphia were under strict instructions from their respective states and the Congress to meet ‘for the sole and express purpose’ of revising the Articles of Confederation. As we know, they did much more than that. They threw out the Articles of Confederation and drafted a new constitution.
The 55 men present at that conference locked the doors – and even nailed the windows shut – to the public and the press, and proceeded to draft an entirely new document which replaced the Articles of Confederation. Many believe that what our founders did was providential; however, it hardly seems wise to trust the special interests of today with powers that could be used “lawfully” to re-write or worse… replace our Constitution.
At the Conference of States, the delegates created a Committee of the Whole, passed a resolution repealing the Articles of Confederation and continued on with what became known as the first and only Constitutional Convention. Can you imagine hearing, “The Constitution for the United States of America is hereby dissolved.”? It happened that way in the 1787 Convention. . . it could happen again.
Some Modern History
In 1964 the Ford Foundation funded and orchestrated – via the CSDI (Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions – the drafting of a new constitution for America. This model constitution, drawing upon the efforts of more than 100 people, took ten years to write. The 40th draft was published in a book titled The Emerging Constitution, by Rexford G. Tugwell (Harper & Row, 1974). The project cost $2.5 million per year and produced the Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America.
In case you would be inclined to dismiss the relevance of the proposed new constitution, bear in mind that it is the product of a globalist minded, tax-exempt think-tank which took ten years, $25,000,000, and the collaboration of over one-hundred like-minded individuals.
“It would be folly to believe this investment is intended to be merely an exercise in political theory. The frightening reality is, the planners are serious in their efforts to impose a new constitution upon the people of America as we enter the 21st Century.” – Col. Arch Roberts, Committee to Restore the Constitution (This link opens in a new browser window).
After the completion of the proposed Newstates Constitution (1974), Nelson Rockefeller, then president of the U.S. Senate, engineered the introduction of HCR 28 calling for an unlimited Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) in 1976. Public opposition defeated this effort so the convention backers then went to the states promoting a “limited convention” for the ostensible purpose of adding a balanced budget amendment.
Since 1976 the advocates of a Con-Con convinced 32 of the required 34 states to pass resolutions calling for a convention. The last state to apply was Missouri in 1983 and since then legislators in three states (Alabama, Florida and Louisiana), having realized the dangers of this action rescinded their call.
The Nevada House of Representatives “purged” its resolution. However, since both chambers passed the resolution, it is questionable whether the one-chamber purge would be accepted as a rescission. Conversely, it has been argued that because the resolution was actually purged from the records – as though it never passed – it would negate the initial resolution which must pass in both chambers to be complete.
We should not consider Nevada’s purge, nor the rescissions of Alabama, Florida and Louisiana as a safety margin.
According to Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a convention when 2/3rds of the states apply. That magic number is 34 states. Since three states have formally withdrawn (rescinded) their calls, that would seemingly leave us 5 states away from having a Con-Con. However, we have been informed that the advocates of the convention are waiting to capture not five, but only two more. It is said that if they get two more states to pass resolutions for a Con-Con, they plan to challenge the rescissions of the three states and throw them into the courts while going ahead with a convention.
Considering the blatant corruption in courts at all levels today, it would be folly to rest on our laurels and feel safe that the courts would uphold those rescissions. For that reason, it should be considered at this time that if only two states pass resolutions calling for a con-con for the purpose of adding the balanced budget amendment, Congress would be required by the Constitution to open a Convention.
After 1983, there were sporadic efforts by various states to pass the resolutions, each of which failed. In 1993 the push was on. Twelve States simultaneously introduced Con-Con resolutions. When that effort was unsuccessful, the forces promoting the Con-Con went back to the planning board.
While the Tenth Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution was being introduced in many states in 1994, those desiring the ultimate elimination of the states spent the year laying the foundation for an historical repeat of 1787… a Constitutional Convention.
The Conference of States was scheduled to take place in “historic” Philadelphia, October 22nd through 25th, 1995 – coincidentally falling on the October 24th, Fifty-year Anniversary of the UN. So sure of success were the powers behind the effort , a Canadian newspaper in 1995 (according to Allen Watt) informed its readers that British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, would be out of the country in October, attending an “important convention” in Philadelphia. We discovered later that Margaret Thatcher’s secretary was an advisor to the COS.
Although the COS was billed as a plan by Governors Michael Leavitt of Utah and Ben Nelson of Kansas, it became clear from a 1987 ACIR-CSG paper that in reality the Governors were merely delivery boys for the scheme led by the Rockefeller founded Council of State Governments. In addition to Leavitt’s Memorandum of 5-17-94: Subject: Conference of States, with its veiled intentions, our first piece of real evidence that the COS was, in fact, planning a Con-Con, appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune 5-25-94, of which unfortunately we did not have knowledge until February, ‘95 after twelve states had passed the resolution. According to the Tribune article, Leavitt had taken
“… his plan for an informal states’ conference and a possible constitutional convention to the Western States Summit in Phoenix.”
Because of the outrage of many Summit attendees of his stated goal for a constitutional convention, Leavitt and company pulled in their horns and proceeded more carefully, denying plans of a con-con clear to the bitter-sweet end. Bitter for the planners, that is; sweet for those of us who worked ‘round the clock for months, praying fervently for divine guidance in our efforts to preserve the Constitution. Our prayers were granted, just as Jesus promised, “ask and it shall be given you”. In reality, the outcome was sweet for all Americans, most of whom had no clue the battle for their freedom was raging.
Conservatives More Dangerous Than Liberals
Interestingly, the organizations and leaders who purport to be ‘conservative’ are the strongest proponents of a Constitutional Convention.
Foremost among them are the *American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), *National Taxpayers’ Union (NTU), *Republican National Committee (RNC) and most notably the *Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS), chaired by Senator Nancy Kassebaum from Kansas, former Secretary of the Treasury, C. Douglas Dillon, and former Counsel to the President, Lloyd N. Cutler. Lloyd N. Cutler was Ross Perot’s advisor; Jimmy Carter’s White House Counsel; and reared his ugly head for a brief period during one of Clinton’s scandals.
When Ross Perot appeared on the scene in 1992, he publicly called for a Constitutional Convention. We have transcripts of Perot’s separate guest appearances with Barbara Walters, Phil Donahue and Larry King during which he stated emphatically that we need a Parliamentary Government (for which Paul Weyrich pines) and bragged that “his people” could get the remaining states needed for a Constitutional Convention call, “in their sleep”. When Perot supporters – members of United We Stand America – discovered their ‘hero’ was in actuality setting them up to take a fall, UWAS as an organization began to disintegrate.
Jesuit-trained Paul Weyrich, founder of ALEC, and apparently the supreme commander at the Council for National Policy meetings, has been a major behind-the-scenes player. ALEC’s hired hand – lawyer John Armor – was the foremost lobbyist to state legislators in the decades-long effort to win the required number of state calls via the “balanced budget amendment” resolution. Weyrich stated in a Washington Post article he authored, titled A Conservative’s Lament, that America needs
“… some type of shadow government… ” because “Unlike European parliamentary democracies, we have no ‘shadow cabinet’, no group of experts who are groomed by their party for decades before they take high office…”.
We’ve come to realize that, even though the liberals are blamed for the downfall of America, the phony conservative leaders have held the door open for them to do so. We urgently appeal to true conservative state legislators and Americans in all political parties to open their eyes to the fact that the Democrat and Republican parties are a single two-headed monster.
What Would America Look Like Under
The Constitution for the Newstates of America?
As outlined in the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America, the fifty united sovereign States will be segmented into ten regions. As we know, that step has already been completed by Nixon’s executive order, although it could simply be undone by state legislative action. States would be eliminated as will elected representation by and for the people, replaced by over-seers in the 10 regions with appointed bureaucrats to keep their subjects in line. This plan, promulgated by the International elite, would more efficiently and effectively control the 280 million people in America under an intended World Government, the seat of which would be the United Nations.
The Bill of Rights would be replaced by “privileges” given to us by the world government and taken away at its whim. For example…
Article 1-A Sec.1 – “Freedom of expression shall not be abridged except in declared emergency”. A perpetual state of emergency could be declared which would prevent anyone from writing the material you are now reading. In fact, we could face imprisonment for the mere reading of this type information.Article 1A Sec.8 – “The practice of religion shall be privileged”.
Article 1B Sec. 8 – “Bearing of arms shall be confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law.”
Article VIII states that the judge decides if there is to be a jury. It is very similar to the “constitutions” under which people in Russia and other Communist countries live. Of course, we are all to believe that Communism is dead and the UN is “democratizing” all the nations of the world.
Here are a few other items:
Depression – Senator Kassebaum’s CCS says they want to wait until the U.S. is in a 1929 type depression to call a convention, because only then would the public accept the radical changes they want.
Schools – Article 1-A Sec. 11 says that free education would only be for those who pass appropriate tests.
In conclusion… for those who believe our Constitution is already dead, and for those of you who claim the Constitution was a scam perpetrated by the Brotherhood – the very fact that the International Elite have been trying for decades to open it up for their proposed changes, should be a clue that we have something they want. How about the Bill of Rights? The Second Article of Amendment? The Ninth and Tenth Articles of Amendment? Article V, which cannot be touched, and which declares that “No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
Did you know that ours is the only Constitution in the world which refers to the Citizens as the People? Other nations’ Constitutions refer to the people as “subjects”. We have papers that lay out the NAFTA Implementation Schedule, which shows that by 2005 the U.S. and Canada are to be merged. Allen Watt, a Canadian and frequent guest on the Sweet Liberty broadcast recently told us about a Canadian TV program he saw. A group of professors discussing a recent summit they had attended, each and all came to the conclusion that it could never happen unless they could somehow repeal our 2nd Amendment.
James M. Burns, on page 160 of Reforming American Government stated:
“Let us face reality. The framers have simply been too shrewd for us. They have outwitted us. They designed separated institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to ‘turn the founders upside down – to put together what they put asunder – we must directly confront the Constitutional structure they erected…”“
In 1787, before the Constitution was ratified and while a few state officials were still uneasy about certain parts of it, there began a movement to reopen the convention. JAMES MADISON, the prime motivator of the first convention, was horrified by the mere suggestion of reconvening. In a letter to George Turberville, he said:
“Under these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second”.
So should we all tremble for the result of a second.