Conservative groups opposed to a ConCon

From Phyllis Schlafly
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Don’t be Fooled by Article V Conventions’ Matthew Spalding, PhD Heritage Foundation The Foundry
  • “Stemming from that analysis, (Constitution Guidance for Lawmakers Series) and taking into consideration the circumstances under which we are now operating, we have come to the conclusion that an Article V convention is not the answer to our problems. The lack of precedent, extensive unknowns, and considerable risks of an Article V amendments convention should bring sober pause to advocates of legitimate constitutional reform contemplating this avenue. We are not prepared to encourage state governments at this time to apply to Congress to call an amendments convention.” Matthew Spalding and Trent England, Feb. 10, 2011

“Prudent ‘fear’ of the Unknown is Not a Fallacy” Dr. Edwin Viera News With Views Oct. 16, 2013

The following three governmental entities would not be changed by an Art. V, Convention:

· A president who ignores the Rule of Law, the Congress, and the Constitution;

· The Administrative Law comprised of unelected bureaucrats who impose restrictive regulations on both the public and private sector with the resultant loss of liberty;

· A Liberal Judiciary which makes law rather than properly interpreting the intent of the law.

New amendments would do absolutely nothing to change this three-fold problem. However, placing our constitution on the chopping block to be messed with by unknown delegates without any pre-convention enforceable rules, selected by politicians on the Left, Middle and Right, and America-haters could lead to modifying, if not erasing the Second Amendment, the First, Fourth and Tenth Amendment and the addition of undesirable amendments.

Saying that we don’t have to worry about undesirable amendments because the amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, overlooks the other mode of ratification set forth in Art. V—“when ratified by 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”. .

Do we want Congress to take the ratification process away from state legislatures and subject ratification to a Convention? Who would select Delegates to a ratification convention and where would the convention be held?

With all of the unknowns involved, why would Texas subject our original Constitution to a Convention of the States for revision?

Shirley Spellerberg

Personal tools