Freedom Campaign - April 2011

Freedom Campaign

by Larry Greenley, Director of Marketing

Widespread Con-Con Successes!
Birchers and their allies are working with state legislators to stop Con-Con calls all across our nation. So far, the successes far outnumber the failures. And, these successes are built on the hard work of our members in educating their state legislators about the dangers of a constitutional convention and in testifying against Con-Con calls in public committee hearings. See also “Recruiting” on page 1.

The Ultimate Argument Against a Con-Con
As most of you know, one of the key reasons for why we oppose the calling of a constitutional convention is that there’s no way to limit which constitutional amendments would be debated and proposed at such a convention. So now, an amendment, known as the Madison Amendment, has been proposed in Congress that would appear to solve the problem of a runaway convention:

ARTICLE ___. The Congress, on Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, which all contain an identical Amendment, shall call a Convention solely to decide whether to propose that specific Amendment to the States, which, if proposed shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified pursuant to Article V.

At first glance, the Madison Amendment, if adopted by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states, would appear to solve the problem of a runaway convention by adding a specific amendment to the Constitution to assure that a single issue Article V convention could be convened safely. However, the inability to limit which and how many amendments would be debated and proposed in an Article V constitutional convention is not based solely on the language of the Constitution, but rather this problem is inherent in the very nature of such a convention. Consider this quote from constitutional expert, Don Fotheringham in “Con-Con Call,” The New American, March 6, 1995:

The organizers have latched onto a principle that is not well known by our citizenry: the consolidation and mobilization of the power inherent in a free people. Congress reaffirmed this principle in an extensive joint resolution in 1935: “The government of the United States is not a concession to the people from some one higher up. It is the creation and the creature of the people themselves, as absolute sovereigns.” This concentration of collective right, formally assembled, portends the most serious of consequences.

Those inherent powers of the people when consolidated are superior in every respect to government. In 1911 Senator Weldon Heyburn of Idaho sounded a warning while debating the matter on the floor of the Senate: “When the people of the United States meet in a constitutional convention there is no power to limit their action. They are greater than the Constitution, and they can repeal the provision that limits the right of amendment. They can repeal every section of it because they are the peers of the people who made it.”

This is the ultimate argument against convening a Con-Con: An Article V convention cannot be limited by either Congress or the Constitution because it is the type of body, no matter how it is called into existence, that is capable of creating constitutions.

Action Summary:

• Keep on working to stop Con-Con calls in your state legislature. See http://www.JBS.org/STOPaCon-Con.
• Keep on working to nullify the entire ObamaCare law in your state. See http://www.JBS.org/StopObamaCare.

Correction: We mistakenly announced in last month’s Bulletin that a refutation of Robert Natelson’s constitutional convention claims had been posted at TheNewAmerican.com. But plans changed. We have now posted “Constitutional Convention: 10 Point Refutation” by Joe Wolverton II which addresses some of Natelson’s claims, and which will appear in the April 4 issue of TNA. Another article by Joe Wolverton on the subject of Natelson’s pro Con-Con arguments will appear in the April 18 issue of TNA and be posted online as well.