Walk in the Park

A WALK IN THE PARK

Well, at least a very good day. As many of you already know, I believe it is past time for a Constitutional Convention, and that our Constitution is being not only circumvented by Congress, but ignored at every turn. To that end, today I attended a presentation of the Constitution, and what it really says, by a young man named Gregg Cohan. There was a decent sized group, some 45-50 people, in attendance, and all seemed to learn much from the gathering. Mostly because Mr. Cohan did not lecture, but held an open discussion, and there certainly was a great deal of discussion.

I had debated about whether to take the time to go, as most of these are presented by some academician with a blue nose and liberal concept of what was actually intended when the Founding Fathers created our beloved document of freedom and liberty. I had many other things that needed to be done, and I certainly didn’t need to be lectured by someone who knows less about the Constitution than I do. But my fears were baseless, and my time was very well spent. Just as enjoyable was the participation of his sons, both well versed in the Constitution and its ramifications. And I got to spend time with some delightful folks from around the area as a bonus.

As usual, when I invest the time to discuss such topics as our government and its guiding principles with others, the old brain cells went into high gear. It was not a political discussion, but strictly about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, though many of us slipped in a few political remarks from time to time, including Mr. Cohan. And I must say that after spending most of the day in this gathering, my belief that we must force Congress to call a Con Con is all that much stronger. Not to mention that my beliefs were confirmed about the abuse Congress, and the current White House, has applied to what is supposed to be their limited powers.

One question that our presenter continued to ask was, “When was the last time you read the Constitution?” To my surprise, many there had not read it lately, and I had to wonder if some had ever read it. I make it a personal point to read it at least monthly, if not more often. Now that will be even easier, as I acquired a printed pamphlet of it while there. And Heaven help the next liberal that I encounter who wants to stress that it’s a “living document”!

Anyway, to make a long story short, at the end of the discussion I just had to ask about what he felt it would take to convene a Con Con. His answer was short; force the state legislatures to listen to us. Even if it means carrying a petition to their door at the State House along with several hundred others. He also indicated that we need to get “face to face” with them, and not allow some page or other lackey to intervene. All the way home my wheels were turning, reviewing what he had said, along with what I already knew.

Knowing that a number of states have addressed the many issues by submitting Article V applications to Congress, I did a web search for confirmation of those documents. The last I had seen on the subject stated that there had been 32 states apply, but what I found was far more damaging to Congress than what I could have anticipated. So that you may understand exactly what I’m talking about here, allow me to post Article V in its entirety.

“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; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

Now that we’ve identified the four ways to call a Con Con, one other thing also becomes obvious. There is no condition mentioned for rescinding an application, nor is there any condition about ensuring the Con Con addresses just one topic for an Amendment. Just how many applications have been filed since the 1787 convention? At least 750, and by all 50 states in total. So why hasn’t there been a Con Con called? The pressure to call one has always been circumvented by Congress passing the necessary legislation that would be called for under a Con Con, and the furor of calling for one dies down. But that’s not what Article V calls for, or makes condition of. So can we say that Congress is blatantly ignoring Article V of the Constitution?

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous to have the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse." ~ Abraham Lincoln

Those applications are recorded in the Congressional Record, and can be viewed at ArticleV.org. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that a Con Con must be called for just one Amendment purpose. Even then, there have been enough applications submitted to bring about a Balanced Budget Amendment, as can be seen on the Amendment Tables on the Article V site, as well as one on Apportionment.

Why, then, has there been no Con Con called? Fear, which is also the most common reason stated in the rescissions of applications, even though, again, there is no condition allowing a rescission. Fear of a “runaway convention” that would dismantle our Constitution and replace it with an entirely different document. This fear seems to be unwarranted if we refer back to Article V. While applications from two thirds of the states, currently thirty-four, are required to call a Con Con, it still takes three fourths of the states legislatures, or by conventions in three fourths, to ratify any proposed Amendment. So what if the Con Con’s create more than the requested addressed issues and proposes umpteen Amendments, or, worst case scenario, a new form of government? The state legislatures or conventions in the states of thirty-eight states must still ratify them.

Let’s now touch briefly on one other aspect of a Con Con, the states themselves. Although the makeup of the Con Con delegates is based on the Congressional Districts just as are the members of the House of Representatives, and the larger population states can bring more power if they combine their votes, the ratification is done by STATE, not by POPULATION, so even the smallest of states brings the same weight to the table as the larger states when it comes to a vote by their separate legislatures or conventions. Considering that in the last election McCain won 195 (45%) Districts to Obama’s 240 (55%), it would be hard to believe that getting a two thirds majority of delegates to support a “wildcat” Amendment, or creating a new Constitution would be possible. Then to get three fourths of the states to ratify any “wildcat” Amendment is beyond comprehension. But considering the current attitude of many Americans, it also becomes apparent that an Amendment forcing a Balanced Budget would be fairly easy to pass in a Con Con AND receive ratification.

Term limits (there are many pros and cons to such an Amendment for the members of Congress) could also be considered, as well as a reaffirmation of the First and Second Amendment as they are written, and forcing Congress to comply with what I view as a consumption tax already in our Constitution, Article I, Section 8. And I’m quite certain many of you will have some other excellent ideas to present along those lines, such as treaties and how they are dealt with. But as always, the bottom line is,

WAKE UP, AMERICA!!

WE’RE BEING SOLD DOWN THE RIVER!!!

The floor is open, please feel free to discuss any portion of this blog, or any other ideas you might have about getting this nation headed back in the right direction.

ALL PHOTOS, GRAPHICS, CLIPART AND LOGOS USED ON THIS SITE ARE THE PROPERTY OF THEIR SPECIFIC OWNERS AND ARE USED WITH FULL PERMISSION OF THOSE OWNERS. A NUMBER OF PHOTOS USED AS BACKGROUNDS AND CLIPART BELONG TO THE OWNER OF THE CHEROKEE PARKS SITE AND MAY NOT BE COPIED OR USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION. PLEASE CLICK THE EMAIL BUTTON ON THE HOME PAGE TO REQUEST PERMISSION FOR USAGE OF PHOTOS, GRAPHICS AND CLIPART DISPLAYED ON THIS SITE, OR GO TO THE LINKS PAGE FOR USAGE REQUESTS REGARDING LOGOS, CLIPART, PHOTOS AND GRAPHICS FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS.