This makes 15 States in a row who refused to petition Congress for the suicidal Article V Convention of States supported by George Soros.
From Judi Caler: Unbelievable drama at the end. They never brought it to the floor, not for lack of trying. This is like a miracle! Adjourned.
Victories around the Nation: Defeating the Numerous Article V Constitutional Convention Resolutions, by Janine Hansen, Eagle Forum National Constitutional Issues Chairman
The battle to save our Constitution rages across the country. Although "conservatives" control no City Councils, County Commissions, State Legislatures, and certainly not the U.S. Congress, "Pie in Sky" Convention of States advocates dream that they can control an Article V Constitutional Convention. The delegates from EVERY state will most likely be proportional based on population and apportioned according to the Electoral College. This puts small states and especially "conservatives" at an incredible disadvantage.
Between 2014 and 2017, twelve states made application to the Congress to Call an Article V Constitutional "Convention of the States" including: Alaska, Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.
However, the "Convention of States Project" applications, including delegate bills which are the gateway to Article V Conventions, have failed this year to pass in a single state and have failed in fifteen states including: Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
In addition to the Article V Convention of States Projects the Left has their own Article V Constitutional Convention resolution which is promoted in Legislatures around the country by Wolf PAC which is financed by George Soros. This Article V which repeals the Supreme Court Decision in Citizen United would severely undermine our First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. It has passed in five states including California, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
This year the Wolf PAC Article V Constitutional Convention has also failed to pass in any state. It has been defeated in Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Washington, West Virginia and most recently in Colorado.
Deb Marks, Colorado Eagle Forum President, writes of the recent battle in Colorado.
"Article V is an issue that crosses party and ideological lines. Colorado Eagle Forum themselves working with 'strange bedfellows' on this issue last 2 weeks. We are thankful to the expert guiding hand of Janine Hansen, who patiently trained CO EF to stand for battle in the CO State Legislature.
"Our steps were divinely orchestrated to educate our state legislature and the public thru a series of forums on the east slope of Colorado April 17-19, culminating in giving testimony on two bills, one in the Senate and one in the House State Veteran & Military Affairs committees on April 25th.
"Anita Stapleton and Rosina Kovar gave excellent testimony on behalf of CO EF. During testimony, CO EF found themselves on the same side along with groups CO League of Women Voters, Common Cause, CO Fiscal Institute and America Votes. Additionally, the state director for America Votes stated in her testimony that these organizations opposed the Article V bills; American Federation of Teachers (AFT),CO AFLCIO, CO Educators Association, NARAL and even Planned Parenthood.
"What a miraculous outcome on both bills! Hallelujah - Praise the Lord!
The final vote on SJM18-005 - bill failed 3 to 2 across party lines. In the House, HJR18-1015 failed 8 to 1 also across party lines. CO EF is grateful to Eagle Forum founder, Phyllis Schlafly for laying the excellent groundwork for all of us in the trenches today. We hope to walk in her footsteps.
"I wish I had been at the Capitol today with you and witnessed firsthand the testimony and votes. Next best was to listen online which I did and took nearly 15 pages of notes on what was testified and stated by the Senate and House State Veterans & Military Affairs Committees. The common thread in each committee from testimony as well as legislator comments centered around the frustration with Congress to act and that an Article V Constitutional Convention was not the vehicle to solve the pressing issues facing us in this nation. It was also apparent that the legislators did not fully understand what Article V means, particularly in the Senate.
"SJR18-005 a Wolf PAC Article V Constitutional Convention application failed in the Senate 3 to 2.
"It appeared that Republican Senator Marble was shocked by losing the vote as she is a strong proponent of an Article V Constitutional Convention of States. I heard the same people giving testimony for the Senate bill as for the House bill.
"HJR18-1015 an identical Wolf PAC Article V bill failed in the House 8 to 1 with only the Democrat Chairman of the Committee voting for the bill.
"Representative Hooten was a sponsor of the bill and ended up voting against it. She made the statement that she was surprised to be voting with groups like Eagle Forum. Every committee member stated their position on the bill before the official vote was made. It was encouraging to hear their positions and why they took their position on this bill."
Eagle Forum has been a major force in opposing the numerous Article V Constitutional Convention resolutions around the nation. Our victories this year have been remarkable as more and more citizens and Legislators recognize the threat the multiple Article V Constitutional Convention resolutions and organizations pose to our Constitution.
Gambling with our Constitution, by Helen Norton and David Super | Guest Commentary. Denver 4/20/18
Today, no one can deny the disturbing influence of money in politics. We can see it at the federal level; we can see it in the states. We can see it in what gets done and in what does not.
Money's influence in politics was pervasive long before the Supreme Court decided Citizens United, but that decision opened the door to even greater political power for well-financed special interests.
Recognizing the problems created by free-flowing campaign cash, however, is quite different from having a viable solution. The Colorado legislature is currently considering legislation House Joint Resolution 1015 and Senate Joint Memo 005 is legislation would likely make the problem even worse.
This legislation proposes that Colorado ask Congress to call a convention to propose new amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The legislation's advocates envision a narrow constitutional convention that would consider only an amendment to overrule Citizens United and allow Congress to enact more effective campaign finance legislation. We share these proponents' interest in meaningful campaign finance reform, but this is not the way to go about it.
Recall that Article V of the Constitution identifies two methods of enacting constitutional amendments. First, Congress may - by a two-thirds vote in each chamber - propose a specific amendment, and the Constitution is amended if at least three-fourths (38) of the states then ratify that amendment. Alternatively, if at least two-thirds (34) of the states ask Congress to form a constitutional convention to propose and consider amendments, then Congress must call such a convention.
But nothing in the Constitution limits such a convention to the issue or issues for which it was called. In other words, anything and everything could be on the table, including fundamental constitutional rights. Nor are there any guarantees about who would participate or under what rules. Indeed, for these reasons, no constitutional convention has been called since the first in 1787.
First, a convention could write its own rules. Indeed, because the Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on the ground rules for a constitutional convention, fundamental questions (like how the delegates would be chosen, how many delegates each state would have, and whether a supermajority vote would be required to approve amendments) would be left wide open to political pressures and deal-making. To illustrate the importance of these issues, if those participating in the convention decided that every state will have one vote in the convention and that the convention could approve amendments with a simple majority vote, then the 26 least populous states - which contain less than 18 percent of the nation's people - could approve an amendment for ratification.
Indeed, in such a highly contentious political environment, delegates could cut deals resulting in amendments covering multiple topics. Although most constitutional amendments have addressed only a single issue, nothing in Article V requires this. Provisions considered radical or damaging, at least in some states, could be attached to highly popular proposals in a single amendment, making their passage more likely.
Second, the Constitution does not give anyone outside of the convention any authority to check or regulate it: The Constitution confines Congress's role in this process simply to calling the convention and specifying how states will ratify any resulting amendments, and it does not empower Congress to disband a convention that strays from its mandate. The Supreme Court, in turn, has declared that the process of amending the Constitution is a "political question" into which federal courts may not intervene.
There is thus no way to predict what constitutional amendments the delegates to a convention might adopt.
Finally, a convention could set its own agenda, possibly influenced by powerful interest groups. In short, once a convention is called, everything in our Constitution would become immediately vulnerable. Wealthy and powerful interest groups would surely see a constitutional convention as an opportunity to enact major policy changes, and are particularly well-equipped to influence the process and press for changes to the agenda. Indeed, some claim already to have 28 of the 34 state resolutions necessary to force Congress to call a convention.
As former Chief Justice Burger wrote, a "Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups." It is precisely because of money's pernicious influence that Colorado should not call for an Article V constitutional convention. At constitutional roulette, everyone loses - except well-financed special interests.
Helen Norton is Professor and Ira C. Rothgerber, Jr. Chair in Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado. David Super teaches law at Georgetown University.
Source: email from Chris Owen,
Comments
We now need some of the original 12 State legislatures who voted for the Article V Convention to vote again to withdraw their petition. This includes Alaska, Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment