Sent by Bob Bird to contact.ipr@gmail.com

I have been watching with concern and alarm for many years now the threat of a Constitutional Convention. Article V of the Constitution appears to be a part of the document that was poorly written. Here are some examples:

1. The failed Equal Rights Amendment caused much confusion when states not only rescinded their approval, but Congress unilaterally extended the approval time.

2. The 27th amendment took 203 years to approve. It was a good amendment, but the very fact that there is no time limit on approval is dangerous. In 1807 Congress passed an amendment making it possible to banish natural-born American citizens. It has never been approved by a single state, but it is still out there . . . dangling.

3. If a con-con is called for a specific reason (balance the budget, outlaw abortion, define marriage, ban flag burning), there is no limitation on what is actually discussed or approved in a convention, and then sent to the states.

4. If a hypothetical 16 states call a con-con to outlaw abortion, 9 to ban flag burning, and 22 to balance the budget, have we then reached the required 34 states? Are states that make a call for two different reasons to be counted only once?

5. Can states rescind their call, as some have already done? The 10th amendment would indicate that they do, but what if Congress does not recognize this, and they call a con-con anyway? After all, the ERA did not stop them from making unilateral decisions in the late 70s.

Article V does not answer these questions.

The call for a con-con is upon us again, with Ohio being the focus. I used to think that this would be a dangerous disaster, but perhaps freedom-lovers ought to rethink that fear, and here’s why.

Let’s go back to 1788 when states were asked to approve the new Constitution. Article VII states that the Constitution would not go into effect unless 9 of the 13 states (two-thirds), meeting in local conventions, approved the document. This was reached without the influential states of Virginia and New York. (They later joined, but with the condition that they reserved the right to withdraw should the new government prove not to their liking … but that is a different story).

But what if they and the other two states hadn’t approved? History is unquestioned at this point: they would have gone their separate ways as independent nations, which is what the Declaration announced in 1776 anyway, but has since been smothered by what Southerners used to call “the late unpleasantness”.

Let’s return to our topic at hand: a new constitutional convention. It is true, the sky is the limit. A convention could rewrite, fundamentally alter or perhaps even destroy the work of 1787 and the 27 amendments since then.

It could announce just about anything: a president for life, an establishment of a monarchy, a unicameral Congress, mandatory socialism, global government . . . all kinds of mischief. But such a document would have to be submitted to the states for approval, and 38 would be necessary for ratification.

Please note: there is a bit of inconsistency here with Article V … only two-thirds of the 13 states were required to ratify the Constitution in 1788, but Article V expects three-fourths of the states (38) before any con-con’s recommendations go into effect.

Supposing that 38 states approve whatever comes out of a con-con, what about the 12 that do not?

Why should they be forced to accept the changed conditions that led them into the union of states in the first place?

Sure, brute force might do it, but where would the moral issue of slavery be this time around?

I submit that a new con-con, if indeed its control falls into the hands of the forces aligned against freedom, would in fact provide a mechanism for secession — a mechanism that few would be able to dispute.

This mechanism should always have remained within the prerogatives of states’ rights, but it could now enter the public mind once again, accepted on its own merits, and with an escape clause for all those states that so desire to use it.

Power usually overreaches itself. This might be it for the New World Order.