Originally posted at www.conservativeedge.com and www.micasims.com
Yesterday in Frankfort a Senate State and Local Government Committee hearing was held on SCR 134, a resolution requesting a Constitutional Convention for the sole purpose of creating a Balanced Budget Amendment. I agree with the need for creating this amendment as the spending in Washington D.C. has gotten out of control. Unfortunately generations of politicians have not followed the Constitution and thus more explicit instructions on how to conduct the people’s business in a better manner is needed. Many in the TEA Party agree with and think a Balanced Budget Amendment ought to be pursued.
Many are unaware of the concept of a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) and what it can be used for. A Con Con is a provision in Article V of the U.S. Constitution*. Basically, though it is one of the ways through which the Constitution can be amended.
There are other methods as listed in Article V and they have been used in the past to amend the Constitution; however, the use of a Con Con has never been employed under our current Constitution, and for good reason. The simple explanation is that once a Con Con has been called that despite the requests of the States for the nature of the Con Con to be limited in scope that cannot be guaranteed. This concern has been expressed by former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, quoted below. Also for a brief tutorial you can watch this 4 part YouTube entitled Beware Article V (40 min).
“I have repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened it is too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.”
There has been a Con Con in our past and it was when our Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in 1787 to amend The Articles of Confederation. What took place was a run-away convention in which a completely new form of government was created. Fortunately for us we had founders like Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and James Madison at this Con Con. Individuals that just got done fighting for independence from Great Britain and understood the concepts of Liberty and Freedom. Today do we have such individuals, I think not and that is precisely why this is such a dangerous proposition.
Just in case further convincing is needed here is a link a proposed Constitution for the New Sates of America in which our rights turn into privileges by government decree. We enjoy them until it is inconvenient for the government. For an in-depth analysis of this proposed constitution visit this link.
Back to the events in Frankfort, the sponsor of this legislation is Senate President David Williams and RINO candidate for Governor testified today before committee pushing for the passage of this legislation. David Williams has served as Senate President for 12 years, during that time we have had 3 governors (Democrat, Republican, and Democrat) and 2 Speakers of the House (both Democrats). So he is the consistent variable in this equation and what has it gotten the Commonwealth of Kentucky?
Well when he started we had a debt of nearly $3 Billion dollars, today it is nearly tripled. He played a part in it all, and would not have happened if not for him. If he stuck to his Conservative principles he would not have allowed any of it. So David Williams has balanced Kentucky’s budget per the Kentucky Constitution; however, it has been based on debt. This is quite a hypocritical stance for David Williams to be taking requesting the Federal government to get its financial house in order (which is needed) while not being able to do so himself. Basically, Williams wouldn’t know a balanced budget if it hit him in the head!
He even took advantage of our recently elected TEA Party Senator, Rand Paul’s willingness to advocate for Balanced Budgets, almost to a fault by convincing him to come and testify before committee and speak on the Senate Floor. Rand seemed convinced this was a good idea, but still essentially considered it a bluff to get action by Congress to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment through the more normal and safe manner. The problem with his logic is you don’t bluff when it comes to our Constitution as this is not a poker game. He said that there was nothing in the Constitution saying that there could not be limits, but we counter that there is nothing saying there has to be limits on a Con Con. He used the example of when a Con Con was threatened to get the Bill of Rights added. Fortunately this effort was put forth by Founders like George Mason. Again these founders understood what was at stake, not like the typical politicians of today.
It is interesting to note that the Bill of Rights was not excluded during the first Con Con not because the Founders did not believe that they did not exist. No, it was because they thought that the Constitution did not limit rights because there were none stated. Others believed that because they were not stated it left our rights vulnerable. The counter to that was we can’t list them all, which lead to the counter of the 9th and 10th Amendments reserving all other rights to the people and the states. This is the classic debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. So Rand is arguing that because something is not stated the possibility does exist for limits, yet in the example he used, those that advocated for it felt that explicit statements needed to be made, thus we have the Bill of Rights.
To counter this logic the TEA Party backed candidate for Governor, Republican Phil Moffett held a rally in which he outlined the problems with this effort and the non-matching actions David Williams has compared to his rhetoric today. Here is an article written by Phil on the subject matter. Today in Committee Take Back Kentucky’s Norman Davis representing a coalition of Liberty and TEA Party organizations voiced our concerns, and oddly enough so did the Democrats in the committee. Unfortunately the Republicans did not see it our way and often at times this whole affair reeked of partisanship, primarily perpetuated by the Republicans like David Williams and the Chair Damon Thayer. It is definitely an odd day when Liberals and Democrats agree with the TEA Party and afterward seemed quite interested in our information. As Ronnie Ellis pointed out this rare alliance in his article here in which I am quoted. Now we can only hope the Democrats that control the House have the same understanding, as it passed the Senate today with all the Democrats voting no and one Republican, Julie Denton (she was a previous challenger to Williams for the position of Senate President before the session started). Just in case though we need to be prepared to contact them and let them know our concerns.
David Williams said in committee that he doesn’t fear a Constitutional Convention. Hopefully after reading this you can see why the Tea Party does fear a Constitutional Convention. Further, Senator Paul went on Leland Conway’s show yesterday. You can hear the interview here (starting at 3:35).
Leland Conway, “I fear a Constitutional Convention terribly. Do you want ‘Grabby Hands Barney Frank’ and ‘We Have to Pass the Bill so You Will Know What’s in it Pelosi’ rewriting the Constitution? Remember, Obama said he thinks the Constitution should tell us what the government must do FOR us.”
*“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.”