Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

States Apply for a Second Constitutional Convention

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “States Apply for a Second Constitutional Convention”.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , ,

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jan Brown says:

    From any perspective…OUR Constitution does NOT allow a ‘pick ‘n choose’ option…nor does OUR Bill of Rights…They were both designed & written to abate misconstruction or abuses of by those with power. “In the question of power, let no more be heard of the confidence in man, but BIND HIM DOWN from mischief by the chains in the Constitution” Thomas Jefferson was, I believe, speaking of the mischief we are currently seeing around us. Once open the door that opens a Constitutional Convention swings very wide BOTH WAYS & difficult to impossible to shut. Without reverance to the numbr of times the Constitution as been amended, even a Harvard graduate should see the ‘folly’ of starting this snowball downhill. Snowballs not only grow they pick up trash & debris. It behooves us ALL to prevent such a destruction to move forward.

    • Bill Walker says:

      The problem with this person’s position is its inconsistency. On the one hand Jan Brown asserts boldly about the “dangers” of a “constitutional convention”. (You can always tell the misinformed by the fact they call an Article V Convention or convention for proposing amendments as described in Article V versus the use of the term “constitutional convention” which, of course, does not appear in the Constitution).

      Of course they oppose obeying the Constitution and instead we should NEVER call the convention under any circumstances because… (the comments then vary but all say in some way the world will come to an end if a convention is held). Of course they equally scream against the government obeying the Constitution then, without a hesitation or beat urge the Constitution not be obeyed when it requires a convention be called.

      When these people start making sense then perhaps what they say should then be taken seriously. But until they get past “the government doesn’t obey the Constitution so the solution to this problem is to not obey the Constitution too” stage all such comments should be entirely ignored.

      • Jan Brown says:

        Ya know, Bill, I couldn’t care much less if you agree with me or not. In fact, if you did I’d worry. I merely quoted that old Jefferson’s warning & reminded readers to use caution, as in fact, the door does swing both ways. It is only prudent to weigh the pros & cons prior to engaging in a major action. This does NOT say to it is or is not Constitutinal…Using the term “Constitutional Convention” is the common refrence just at St. Louis instead of Saint Louis…..I brazenly opined that I think it would be destructive & that most certainly does not in any shape or form indicate that the whole world will end..There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about what I said or meant…Like you & many, I, too, have a degree & have studied our Constitution & over the past several years, I have revisited it numerous time & carry a pocket copy at all times. Now does this make me an expert? No Sir, it does not…nor do I feel any superiority on this subject on your part. Your opinion is as important as mine, any respect you show towards mine will be returned

        • Bill Walker says:

          Yellow is red. There is no difference between the two colors.

          Obviously this is illogical and an oxymoron. Obviously there is a difference between the color red and the color yellow. Now, if I insist there is no difference anyone reading my statement and KNOWING it is not true will immediately dismiss my statement because it cannot be relied upon. In short the statement is inconsistent and therefore any person making it will and should be not be listened to because the statement made rings untrue.

          Frankly, whether you care or not about my comment doesn’t matter to me either. What is important that you clearly don’t see any issue with making an inconsistent statement or the fact that those who realize your error will not take you seriously because your logic is lacking. Let us examine your statements.

          “OUR Constitution does NOT allow a ‘pick ‘n choose’ option…Without reverance to the numbr of times the Constitution as been amended, even a Harvard graduate should see the ‘folly’ of starting this snowball downhill. Snowballs not only grow they pick up trash & debris. It behooves us ALL to prevent such a destruction to move forward.”

          First you clearly acknowledge what is fact. The convention must be called. Then for whatever reason you state even though the Constitution must be called we should not obey it. Therefore your conclusion is the Constitution should not be obeyed even though you admit it must be obeyed.

          Your warning using Jefferson or the reason you cite for not obeying the Constitution become immaterial because your logic is completely missing. Either something is obeyed or it is not. Either you have a “pick and choose” option or you do not when dealing with the Constitution. Once you’ve made and established which it is, then either you say the Constitution does not have to be obeyed, or if it must be obeyed then solutions to concerns must be addressed and resolved.

          Mixing the two as you have done simply means you have no logic in your response as I’ve stated. If you have no concern that those reading your statements will not heed or actually use them and therefore you are simply wasting your time posting things people won’t accept, that is your problem and your time. But a logical, reasonable person would be concerned.

  2. Doc Rings says:

    @Bill… I think you been pwned! :)

  3. Bill Walker says:

    Rather than to attempt to refute point by point the misstatements made in this article, I suggest instead you go to http://www.foavc.org and read the material at that site. I strongly suggest reading the FAQ section especially the part about the so-called “Burger Letter” from which quotes are taken fro this article.

    I also suggest you take time to read the numerous Supreme Court decisions regarding an Article V Convention. Then actually read the text of Article V and realize that among other guarantees is the fact any amendment proposal must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states AFTER receiving 2/3rds support in a convention. This means in real terms that 13 states, or actually one legislative house in each of those states can prevent any amendment proposal from becoming part of the Constitution. So basically, the opposition to a amendment proposal can lose at the convention and still afford to lose 25 percent of its support and it will still win out because there is still enough opposition to stop the proposed amendment.

    Finally, if you want to just how accurate the author who wrote this article is, consider this. The Constitution has been amended 27 times, not 17 as he states. If he can’t even get the number of amendments right, how can you trust him on his other so-called “facts.”

    • Brian Evans says:

      Bill Walker,
      I feel honored that Bill Walker of FOAVC has come to dispute my article. I’ve studied your Harvard speech many times and you’re a straight to the point kind of guy. I like that.

      …but let’s start with your attempt to discredit my article with the accusation that the Constitution was amended 27 times. If you wish to get technical about it…the Bill of Rights were amended together so the actual number of ratification is 18. I left the Bill of Rights out as an amendment because they are the “Bill of Rights”.

      As for the precedence of a convention, we have the Convention of 1787 that was meant to amend the Articles of Confederation and we saw how that turned out. Case law doesn’t apply here because our Constitution would be on trial.

      I didn’t see your rebuttal against the US Supreme Court Warren Burger letters. A letter from the Michigan Supreme Court Judge doesn’t hold a candle to the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. You know as well as I that there’s a complete contrast to a state convention and a US Constitutional Convention…and I have to use US Constitutional Convention because it is indistinguishable. It cannot be called anything but a “Constitutional Convention”.

      I understand that you wish to have a second Constitutional Convention but I ask…why? Our Bill of Rights is the only protections that “we the people” have against tyranny…and it seems that you and Harvard are hell bent on conducting a convention that would look at that.

      Now, I believe I touched on every point you made…and here’s a link to US Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger’s actual letter.

      http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/pdf/WarrenBurger-letter.pdf

      • Bill Walker says:

        First of all I appreciate the comments by Mr. Evans regarding my speech at Harvard. However I must correct him. First he cannot simply ignore the Bill of Rights as they are called because the states received them at the same time. As the public record shows, each state considered the proposed amendments individually and in some cases approved some while disapproving others. I grant it appears they were all approved simultaneously but in fact each proposed amendment was considered by the states individually. You can read Federalist 85 as to the amendments be considered singly as even more evidence as to this position.

        http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llac/002/0300/03792033.tif

        In any event the point is minor. The Constitution lists 27 amendments, not 18. If the author wishes to state this, then he assumes the risks associated with giving out inaccurate information.

        As to the author’s comment regarding the 1787 convention, I again point to public record which clearly shows Congress, on two different occasions, unanimously accepted the “resolutions” of the convention. If the convention had not executed the wishes of Congress it is unlikely Congress would have accepted the resolutions from the convention. Moreover, given the long ratification procedure of the states with some 10 to as many 20 votes in each state to get the Constitution ratified by the states, it is highly unlikely if the states believed the convention did not have the right to propose what it did, that they would have ratified the proposal. Moreover, and this is most important, there is no colonial records of any suggesting the convention did not fulfill its mandate and did not exceed that mandate. A “runaway” convention was an idea that was created in a paper written in the late 19th century long after 1787.

        Finally we come to the so-called Burger letter. In sum, it is phoney. Here are links to articles I’ve written about the letter. The evidence I believe speaks for itself.

        http://www.foavc.org/reference/file4.pdf
        http://www.foavc.org/reference/file5.pdf
        http://www.foavc.org/reference/file6.pdf

        I remind the author that the term “constitutional convention” is not used in the Constitution rather the specific and clearly understandable term of “convention for proposing amendments…” The term limits the convention to a specific purpose, that of proposing amendments to the Constitution. Thus the term itself prevents a convention from writing a new constitution which is the expressed purpose of a “constitutional convention.”

        And as final proof, not even the 1787 convention was a “constitutional convention.” Its official title given to it by act of Congress was “Federal Convention of 1787.” If there is any further proof required that the convention did exactly as it was required to do by Congress, and as allowed by the Articles of Confederation, that is alter the articles, I suggest the author take the time to compare the Articles with the text of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and he will find that much of the text, or the purpose of the text is within the Constitution. Indeed he can actually take the complaints found in the declaration and find them practically in order dealt with in the text of the Constitution.

        As to the articles. What was actually new? The articles had three branches of government, a president, court and legislature. So did the Constitution. The articles laid out rights of states and prohibition to the states. So does the Constitution. The list goes on and indeed when actually compared, there is very little that is “new” in the Constitution. Granted some things are more detailed, but the basic concepts existed in the articles and were simply “altered” as the articles allowed.

      • Bill Walker says:

        I’d like to point one more item regarding the so-called Burger letter using the evidence provided by Mr. Evans. If you click on his link you will see that the letter in question has white lines through it at a regular rate. Indeed one of the lines goes through the supposed signature of Mr. Burger himself.

        What does this tell us about this evidence?

        First of all, a review of what a pdf (portable printable file) is and how such lines are created is in order. As everyone knows a pdf file is a scanned (in this case) object that is electronically recorded and can therefore be read on a computer. It is true such a file can be modified and therefore is not a secure file in the sense the information presented in the image can be altered, such as, for example covering part of the original image with a piece of paper so the scan does not pick up that portion on the page. However in this case, the significance of the point is not what may have been obscured but what is clear to anyone viewing the page as presented.

        The point is how the white lines appear on a page. Anyone who knows anything about printers knows that ink jet printers, especially the early models often left these lines unless they were cleaned. As ink jet printers were first released by HP in February, 1988, assuming the letter date is accurate, any printer that printed it was only about four months old and most certainly first generation meaning this printer created the white lines.

        The point I’m making is for the lines to show up like they do means the letter in question had to be scanned at least once and then printed out by an ink jet printer and then scanned again. At some time later, 1993 or better, this copy was made into a pdf file. Thus, the pdf file proves nothing as this file is clearly a copy, not the actual original that obviously could have been modified, altered or otherwise changed before being scanned. The question then becomes why is Phyllis Schafly providing an obvious copy of the letter rather than the actual original? Doesn’t it stand to reason there is no logical reason for her to do so?

        If you believe I am wrong then ask this question. Assuming Warren Burger wrote this letter, do you really believe he, as a Supreme Court justice would send out a public letter with Supreme Court letterhead and his signature on it in such a condition such that white lines ran through his signature and the rest of the letter? If so, how did he sign the letter then create a white line through it if as purported this is the original letter from Burger? Remember pdf didn’t exist until several years after the supposed date of this letter.

        Finally consider this. This is not the only example of Phyllis Schalfly lying about letters or contents of letters in order to lie about the meaning or intent of a letter. See below:

        http://www.foavc.org/reference/file21.pdf

        The fact is there are too many questions surrounding this so-called evidence to believe it is authentic. When something does appear to be authentic, it usually isn’t.