Defend, not amend, the Constitution.
Several well-meaning Republicans in NH and the US have joined with many not-so-well-meaning progressive groups in calling for an Article V Convention, also known as a Con Con, Constitutional Convention, or Convention of States. This is being done via filing various resolutions that would call for a convention in each state legislature.
The renewed hysteria over amending the constitution seems to have been re-ignited by right-wing talk show host Mark Levin. Levin believes that nullification is not valid way to deflect illegal federal laws, despite assurances from the Tenth Amendment Center and scholars like Thomas E. Woods. Levin and Woods had a recent “disagreement” of sorts, but to date Levin refuses to debate Woods openly on the subject.
There is a currently before the NH House a Concurrent Resolution, HCR 1, that aims to stop all calls from passing in this state.
The NH Tea Party Coalition is a local NH-only group which includes several conservative groups that have banded together to work on various issues. Groups such as the JBS, the NH Firearms Coalition, and the NH Center for Constitutional Studies, support the position that calling for a “Con Con” would not make the Constitution any more enforceable than it is now, even if the conservatives pushing for it succeeded in keeping progressives amendments out. Constitutional experts such as Dr. Edwin Vieira and Tom Woods agree. Disturbingly, many of those progressives have expressed the desire to use a convention to “repeal and replace” the second amendment, and write in “rights” such as the right to an abortion, housing, a job, and income.
In the video below, you will hear Professor Mary Margaret Penrose advocate a rewrite of the U.S. Constitution via an Article V Convention. She believes the 2nd Amendment must be abolished.
Among groups that support the calls for a convention are the progressive WOLFPAC, the Alliance for Democracy, the Center for Media and Democracy, Code Pink, the Independent Progressive Politics Network, the Progressive Democrats of America, the Sierra Club, Vermont for Single Payer, “Tea Party” Patriots (a GOP PAC not associated with NH), Larry Lessig of Harvard University, TV host Cenk Uygar, and the authors of “Constitution 2020” — a book advocating turning the constitution into a more “progressive” document.
See sample chapters of the book here: Constitution2020.org/sample_chapters
A petition is circulating online that asks NH residents to join the effort to stop our NH legislature from making a request for a convention. Article 5 of the Constitution says a convention of the states requires “application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states.” This means a minimum of 34 states would be required to petition Congress to set a date and venue. A resolution recently failed in the Virginia legislature as it has done before. Unfortunately there will always be those attempting to bring the issue back. Many states have passed, and then subsequently rescinded, their calls for a convention.
Dinesh DiSouza said “…it terrifies me to think that, for example, we could have a Constitutional Convention now, and have a group of comparable wisdom, basically you can say ‘update’ the Founding. More likely we don’t need to redo the Founding; what we need to do is live by the principles of the Founding.”
NHTPC’s philosophy is simply this: if we can’t enforce the current document, what makes anyone think changing it will help? We’d rather not open it up to changes that could result in the loss of the document’s original intent.
Related Articles:
Don’t Be Fooled by Article V Conventions
Nullification vs. Art. V Convention: Why Mark Levin is wrong
Article V Convention: A Titanic Irrelevance
ARTICLE V CONVENTION: HOW “INDIVIDUALS OF INSIDIOUS VIEWS” ARE STEALING OUR CONSTITUTION
DELEGATES TO AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION CAN’T BE CONTROLLED BY STATE LAWS
How to Win the Argument Against an Article V Convention – Defend, Don’t Amend!
Addendum 2/23/2015:
The Ford foundation spent $25 million writing the NEW STATES CONSTITUTION which eliminates the BILL OF RIGHTS and makes everything a privilege granted by the feds.
“It was the Ford Foundation, in 1964, who funded and orchestrated the drafting of a new constitution for America. As mentioned, this was done via the tax-exempt Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, an offshoot of “The Fund for the Republic, Inc., which had been established with a $15 million grant from the Ford Foundation.”
I would only vote for a Constitutional convention when the present government begins to follow the Constitution of these united states. Which may not be in my life time, so a convention is out of the question. The system is on the very edge of a major system failure. It starts and ends with the Federal Reserve Banking cartel and its relationship with Congress and the new corporate structure of this republic. A convention at this point, with these corrupt, coercive, mechanisms in place will seal the fate and conclude the great American experiment. The proponents of the Convention state that the delegates will only work on agreed amendments. I have no confidence in this analysis. A good example would be the proposed balanced budget amendment. 18 Trillion dollars in fiat currency debt has already buried the system. How do you balance anything with the Federal Reserve intact? You cannot. Why? Because all the Congressional delegates are beholden to the Federal Reserve Cartel, it keeps them elected, in power, and continues the present day fraud on the people. If a Constitutional Convention Convenes, we must realize it will be nothing more then a board meeting of the Federal Reserve Bank and we will not be invited.
You know ED if the present government were to follow the Constitution we would not need a Constitutional Convention. All we’d need to do is the occasional Congress led amendment session. I think the true reason, if there are any, for a Con-Con is to severally alter or abolish our current form of government (without war). And that would be a very bad idea if, like you say, our government actions today are corrupt and unconstitutional. Trying to change the Constitution during a time when even the States are corrupt also is a fools choice.