The CONTINUING Threat of a Constitutional Convention (CON-CON)

The CONTINUING Threat of a Constitutional Convention (CON-CON)

This is a discussion on The CONTINUING Threat of a Constitutional Convention (CON-CON) within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I did some research after Matt Larson raised a point on the Amendment process and I replied on another thread about the ways the US ...

Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Exclamation The CONTINUING Threat of a Constitutional Convention (CON-CON)

    I did some research after Matt Larson raised a point on the Amendment process and I replied on another thread about the ways the US Constitution can be legally altered, including the Treaty Process.

    In that point, I raised the concept of the CON-CON or Constitutional Convention and that we had come close in the 1980's, but that the time period had expired.

    Well, guess what: Some states have a CONTINUING CALL for such a CON-CON and only TWO MORE STATES ARE NEEDED TO RATIFY THE CALL FOR IT TO BE HELD.

    A CON-CON could legally rewrite the Bill of Rights. It could scrap the whole document in favor of a communist or globalist dictatorship! See below for an article, and I'll post a link:

    States With a Standing Call for a Constitutional Convention

    Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
    Texas, Utah, Wyoming.

    The remaining 18 states have not called for a convention. Citizens must keep a vigilant watch to block legislation in any of these states that calls for a Con-Con.

    Although 32 states had initially passed resolutions calling for a Con-Con (for the alleged purpose of adding a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution), 3 states Alabama, Florida and Louisiana rescinded their calls.

    The Nevada House of Representatives "purged" its resolution. However, since both chambers passed the resolution, it is questionable whether the one-chamber purge would be accepted as a rescission. Conversely, it has been argued that because the resolution was actually purged from the records it would negate the initial resolution, since it must pass in both chambers.

    We should not consider Nevada's purge, nor the rescissions of Alabama, Florida and Louisiana as a safety margin.

    According to Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a convention when 2/3rds of the states apply. That magic number is 34 states. Since three states have formally withdrawn (rescinded) their calls, that would seemingly leave us 5 states away from having a Con-Con. However, we have been informed that the advocates of the convention are waiting to capture not five, but only two more. It is said that if they get two more states to pass resolutions for a Con-Con, they plan to challenge the rescissions of the three states and throw them into the courts while going ahead with a convention.

    Considering the blatant corruption in courts at all levels today, it would be folly to rest on our laurels and feel safe that the courts would uphold those rescissions. For that reason, it should be considered at this time that only two states are needed to require the Congress to call a Constitutional Convention.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802
    Here is a whole list of pertinent LINKS:

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/concon.htm
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  3. #3
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    A CON-CON could legally rewrite the Bill of Rights. It could scrap the whole document in favor of a communist or globalist dictatorship!
    I wonder how much unrest that might create?! Leaving aside the sheep who seem not to mind how they are governed, there is a solid hard core of true Americans who I could not see taking this lying down.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,286
    Or it could rewrite the imagration issue and make this a closed boarder country, depends on who is the Pres, and who has control of congress at the moment, the political arguments would be so un-ending that they would likely just end up chaising their tail. It would be folly to try and re-write what some of the finest minds of the last 300 years figured out and put to paper, for insight go read the Federalist papers.
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Lightbulb I TEACH the Federalist Papers....

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon J
    It would be folly to try and re-write what some of the finest minds of the last 300 years figured out and put to paper, for insight go read the Federalist papers.
    While I agree with you in spirit, I TEACH the Federalist Papers as a part of my American Government classes. The paper that is really SPOT ON to the 2nd Amendment issue is Federalist #46 and you've got to really dig thru the entire paper to see the connections. I usually assign several of the papers for the AP Government test review and although #46 is never among those covered in the test (surprise surprise), I use it as a control to see how much depth they are really getting from the papers. Usually it is very superficial. I find this is true as well from my fellow social studies teachers who are not on the A.P. track. If it's true for teachers what do you think the capacity for understanding is going to be for Joe Schmoe on the street, already a victim of the public school curriculums?
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  6. #6
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,920
    If it's true for teachers what do you think the capacity for understanding is going to be for Joe Schmoe on the street, already a victim of the public school curriculums?
    Slim to none.

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Unhappy Maybe.....or maybe not....

    Quote Originally Posted by P95Carry
    I wonder how much unrest that might create?! Leaving aside the sheep who seem not to mind how they are governed, there is a solid hard core of true Americans who I could not see taking this lying down.
    I don't know about that one. I think that the vast majority of those Patriots you mention would fight to the death an invasion by the UN for example but might just roll over and take it once they understood the DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES at work. They are...after all...true believers in the Rule of Law by definition. How many of them who are forced to live in strict gun control states like NJ or MA or even D.C. willingly and knowingly carry in violation of the law? They moan and groan and commiserate, but they don't carry because that's the law.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  8. #8
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,920
    I think that the vast majority of those Patriots you mention would fight to the death an invasion by the UN for example but might just roll over and take it once they understood the DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES at work.
    There ya have it.

  9. #9
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    are...after all...true believers in the Rule of Law by definition.
    True Jim - but I could foresee a break point even so. The law abiding nature is inherently followed during the ''stable'' state as it might be called. Folks reluctantly suck it all up, wanting to not be criminals.

    I am envisaging a situation where change was abrupt and traumatic - a severe wake-up call if you will, and enough to shake off the law abiding nature of many. It is small incremental change that always works best and usually does not produce major reactions - make the change relatively sudden and severe - and I think things might be different - a sorta ''enough is enough'' if you will.

    If the future suddenly looks bleak enough many might feel that they have little more to lose and so, might see action as a viable option.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  10. #10
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,920
    If the future suddenly looks bleak enough many might feel that they have little more to lose and so, might see action as a viable option.
    Sounds good.
    Unfortunatley, those that can act, and act efficiently appear to be an extreme minority in this country.

    I am under no illusion that anything would change for the better.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array Fragman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by P95Carry
    It is small incremental change that always works best and usually does not produce major reactions.
    Exactly right, and exactly how they took the guns in the U.K., a little piece at time.

    Which is why people should not accept ANY new infringement, however small. And a way to stop that is to make it clear that they will not be in office when re-elections come around. These people want power more than anything else and votes is the only thing they listen to.

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by P95Carry
    I am envisaging a situation where change was abrupt and traumatic - a severe wake-up call if you will, and enough to shake off the law abiding nature of many. It is small incremental change that always works best and usually does not produce major reactions - make the change relatively sudden and severe - and I think things might be different - a sorta ''enough is enough'' if you will.
    You make a valid point, Chris. But I would see a CON-CON as that spirit of incrementalism accellerated as FRAGMAN noted. Such an event would gather worldwide media coverage and we'd get the blow by blow from inside the hall as it happened. Even if the whole thing were rigged (as it may well be) the great masses of folks would be acclimated to the ensuing process as it happened. Nothing "sprung upon the nation." Those folks who might be of a mind to resist could carry on an Iraqi style insurgency until their dying day and it wouldn't change the outcome one bit. They'd just be those damn gun nuts who can't accept progress... They'd be unable to form a cohesive force with specific goals and objectives. Subject to betrayal at all times from any "law abiding citizen..."
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  13. #13
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier
    They'd just be those damn gun nuts who can't accept progress...
    That sadly is one of the factors I do agree on - because by the time things got bad enough for even sheep to see what was going on - the ''nuts'' would have been blackballed so much from on high that they would probably finish up being ostracized by the huge majority.

    Oh for a truly cohesive nation - that is where strength would lie.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Virginia moves to call a Constitutional Convention
    By paramedic70002 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 28th, 2011, 05:25 AM
  2. Continuing Problems Sig 232
    By mojust in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 7th, 2009, 09:32 PM
  3. The continuing saga of the Tennessee restuarant bill - latest
    By Tangle in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: May 20th, 2009, 10:19 PM
  4. Continuing Proof Gun Bans Don't Work
    By ronwill in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 28th, 2007, 02:59 PM

Search tags for this page

constitutional convention as threat

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors