Feed on

The Inside Story of How Oklahomans Beat the Con-Con



Please forward this information all over Pennsylvania!

Pennsylvania HR 63 is an application to Congress for an Article V Constitutional Convention (con-con) using “Convention of States” (COS) model legislation.

Joint public hearing with the House and Senate State Government Committees on HR 63 to discuss Compact for America and the progress of the Balanced Budget Amendment Nationwide:

Monday, April 13, 2015

10:00 AM

Room G-50 Leroy Irvis Bldg. State Capitol Complex, Harrisburg, PA

This meeting will be broadcasted.

The Convention of States Project co-founder Michael Farris (more info on him below) will speak at the hearing on Monday. COS has spent a lot of time and money promoting this and has duped a sizable list of co-sponsors by making many deceitful claims (see talking points below for rebuttals):

  • Sponsors can be delegates = the new Founding Fathers and Mothers of Amerika
  • Instead of calling it a con-con we’ll rename it a “Convention of States”
  • The experts say this is risk-free
  • Legislators can control a “Convention of States”
  • We can bypass Congress
  • Liberal Republicans and Democrats will sit this one out
  • The media and political establishment will have no influence
  • The ratification process makes it safe
  • We can predict the future

Please contact your legislators immediately asking them to stop this suicidal fools errand!

  1. Here is a prewritten, editable email that will go directly to your legislators based on your address. Please mention that they should OPPOSE HR 63.
  2. Attend the public hearing to register your opposition and testify against HR 63 if given the opportunity.
  3. The most critical thing you can do right now is to contact the leaders and all of the members of both the House and Senate State Government Committees. Contact information can be found on each committee webpage by clicking on member names. You can send one message to the whole committee and use one or more of these talking points or put it in your own words:
  • There are many good reasons why for 228 years America hasn’t had a new national Constitutional Convention (con-con). Historically, Americans have understood that a con-con will set its own rules, its own agenda and can even change the ratification process just like they did in 1787. This is how we got our current Constitution.
  • We don’t need to change the Constitution. We need to obey the Constitution.
  • The proponents’ fear-mongering mantra is, “We have to do something before it’s too late!” Why not follow the Constitution? It worked well when we did. They don’t have a plan for enforcing our current Constitution and they don’t have a plan for enforcing their new Constitution.
  • We all agree the federal government is out of compliance with the Constitution. We disagree that the solution is to change the Constitution.
  • It’s illogical to think that adding or changing rules will compel chronic rule-breakers to follow the rules. What are we going to say, “We really mean it this time?”
  • The proper solution: When followed, the Constitution provides the mechanism and limitations to stop special interest spending that balloons the budget and attracts special interest electioneering. No risky Constitutional Convention is necessary!
  • An Article V Constitutional Convention Would Enable Powerful Special Interests to Revise the Constitution in Their Favor!
  • If the ratification process is guaranteed to stop bad amendments since it requires 3/4 of the states, how were bad amendments such as the 16th, 17th and 18th amendments ratified?
  • The 17th Amendment removed the state legislatures’ check on federal abuses of power. A return is needed to the pre-17th Amendment system where the state legislatures would appoint U.S. Senators who could then rein in federal spending instead of pursuing special interest money.
  • Article V gives Congress power to bypass state legislatures and use state ratifying conventions, giving them and their cronies influence over the process.
  • Johnny-come-lately proponents of an Article V Constitutional Convention pretend they can predict the future and tell us exactly how this process will play out. This naiveté would be comical if it weren’t so dangerous. They’re making many assertions about state legislators being in control of the process that are simply not supported by Article V and are disputed by the Congressional Research Service, numerous law professors, constitutional scholars and judges who have warned about the dangers of a modern convention and the damage it could do to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
  • Black’s Law Dictionary is America’s most trusted law dictionary. Its definition of constitutional convention: “A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.” Renaming it a “Convention of States” doesn’t change what it is.
  • The only precedent for this is the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia where they changed the Article 13 rules of ratification. “The Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” But the convention lowered the bar from “every State” to “the conventions of nine States,” and cut Congress and the legislators out altogether. They made it easier to ratify the new Constitution.
  • Something ignored by proponents is the actual text of Article V: the only power guaranteed to state legislatures is to apply; if 2/3 apply, Congress calls the convention; the convention proposes amendments (plural). It doesn’t say state applications set the convention agenda or even that states will select the delegates, but proponents claim states will control the whole process. Congress disagrees because that’s obviously not what Article V says. The Congressional Research Service asserts that it is Congress’ responsibility to “call the convention,” which includes time, location, delegate apportionment, immunity, pay, etc.
  • Legislators cannot control what will happen if an Article V Constitutional Convention is called. The Congressional Research Service says a likely scenario is that delegate apportionment would be based on the electoral college model, which would give Pennsylvania 20 delegates out of 535.
  • State legislation purporting to set delegate apportionment, pay, penalties, etc., appears to be an unconstitutional usurpation of congressional authority. Will federal courts decide this dispute or will Congress just ignore state legislatures like they do now?
  • Without discussing the role of the Federal Reserve and curtailing its ability to simply print money and buy influence, any proposal to address financial issues will fail. The Fed has an uncanny ability to manipulate procedures and move money around to avoid oversight. Why is this never addressed by proponents of an Article V Constitutional Convention?
  • Please don’t take this unnecessary risk that could rewrite the very Constitution that has enabled a greater amount of freedom and prosperity for a greater number of people than any system ever devised by man.
  • The proposed amendments won’t solve problems, they’ll just open the door for mutilating our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Convention of States Project was co-founded by Mark Meckler and Michael Farris, a couple of slick attorneys who are running around the country pretending they can predict the future and making many assertions that are not supported by Article V (see talking points above for rebuttals).

Meckler/Farris have some interesting bedfellows. In order to claim that experts support their effort, they recently publicized a “Legal Board of Reference” that consists of themselves and seven others. Two of the others are also members of the infamous global government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations: Robert P. George and C. Boyden Gray.

Since at least 2011, Meckler has been working with Lawrence Lessig to bring both the Right and Left together to work toward a new constitutional convention. They don’t care what changes you want, as long as you want a convention. Lessig is a Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, served as an adviser on Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, and his name also appeared on the 2013 guest list for the globalist Bilderberg Conference.

Watch a short clip of Logical Fallacies with Michael Farris. Meckler/Farris are deploying several false attacks against JBS:

They claim the purpose of COS is to limit federal power through non-solutions like a balanced budget amendment and term limits. This courageous state senator shreds their talking points:

Montana State Senator Scott Sales dismantled the Convention of States (COS) talking points as he first questions the Senate COS sponsor and then the COS co-founder, Mark Meckler. Then the committee voted it down.

Senator Sales also upset Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a possible 2016 Republican presidential contender, during a recent tour of state legislatures across the West to drum up support for a con-con to modify the U.S. Constitution to include a balanced budget amendment.

The Kasich stop in Helena didn’t turn out so well when Senator Sales challenged Kasich on the Ohio governor’s support for Medicaid expansion. This put the governor on the defense trying to explain how he can support both the expansion of big government and a balanced budget. Sounds like a con job that needs to be exposed:

Once a con-con has been called it opens the door for every special interest in the world to influence changes to our Constitution. Please share this information with everyone you can, especially your legislators. Our Constitutional Republic could be destroyed by this.

For Freedom,

Chris Stevens
Regional Field Director
The John Birch Society


Comments are closed.