SR-2350b – Constitutional Convention Scam – AGAIN

Bill Still

Stillreport: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” ― Daniel Webster I apologize that this report consumed over 3 days to produce. Unfortunately, in one form or another, weakened substitutes for the U.S. Constitution will continue to reappear, because our Constitution, with its precious Bill of Rights, is such a thorn in the side of globalism. Hopefully these quotes will not be lost to history, and subsequent generations. Good evening , I’m still reporting on coup. I apologize that this took so long. Unfortunately for many well-meaning Constitutional conservatives calling for a second Constitutional Convention is all a part of the on-going coup plot which spans decades, if not centuries. There is absolutely nothing new about this Con-Con con. About 30 years ago, I played a part in bringing about Florida’s withdrawal from its Constitutional Convention call. Shortly thereafter, at the invitation of legendary Constitutional activist, attorney Phyllis Schlafly, I went to the New Jersey capitol to attend a hearing about New Jersey’s Con-Con call. Mrs. Schlafly was my mentor in everything I’m about to discuss – a discussion which flies in the face of a handful of well-intended but mis-informed conservative Constitutional scholars, including Mark Levin. Last Sunday, Mr. Levin had on as guests, former U.S. Senator, Dr. Tom Coburn, and attorney Mark Meckler, one of the leaders of the Tea Party movement. I don’t know why these three attorneys can’t see what’s going on here. I’m completely in their corner when it comes to deconsolidation of power. The federal government has usurped way too much of the power of the sovereign states. The question is what is the best way to get it back. My contention is that there is no magic bullet. The cause is good and noble and true, but the only way to do this is like every other change wrought through the political process – work slowly and surely and within the protections of our Constitutional framework. Be careful when opening the door to wholesale change of our precious Constitution. We aren’t going to change this through one magjc convention, and anyone who offers such a magic solution should be told to slow down and consider the following facts. [insert note #1] This is the core argument for the Constitutional Convention. Now let’s look at the text of Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.” Notice that if what Mr. Meckler says is true, that taking power away from a runaway Congress was the core impetus for adding that the Con-Con could be called by “two thirds of the several states”, well that sounds right – right? No, wrong, and here’s why. Look at the ratification process in the last clause of Article 5. “… when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.” Two points: tell me, who are the peoples’ representatives in a sovereign state? Their legislature. So, let’s say that the next few words are to provide for a situation where the state legislators are not to be trusted with voting on the ratification of the new Constitution. Then who gets to vote? “… or by conventions in three fourth thereof…” Well, ok, that sounds like a good backup, but who would decide how these folks are going to be selected for this convention. That’s a pretty important detail. Maybe Congress would declare that only Democrat senators from the several states would get to be voters in these state conventions. But the final phrase in Article 5 provides important context for this critical question: “… as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.” Yup, you see the basic problem here. Congress gets to decide which ratification process will be used, and NO DOUBT Congress will decide which way favors the status quo, don’t ya think? Now that’s just the basic problem, but there are tons of other problems and legal scholars for the last 60 years have weighed in on them. [insert @ Note 2 to Note 3] And that is exactly why Madison noted that there was “no comment” when this question was brought up. Because as written, Cong

Se videoen direkte fra kilden