Chuck Baldwin: Virginia takes US Constitutional Convention stage

Virginia Takes Con Con Stage
by Chuck Baldwin

As I noted in this column a few weeks ago, proponents of assembling a new Constitutional Convention are a scant two states away from achieving that monstrous reality. (Please review my column on this subject at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081216.html )

At that time, the state of Ohio was in the crosshairs. Fortunately, enough people from that good state inundated their state representatives with objections, and the matter was tabled (for how long, no one knows). Now it appears that the Commonwealth of Virginia is going to be the next battleground state.

In all likelihood, the Virginia legislature will be the next state government to take up the Con Con issue. It is imperative, therefore, that the citizens of Virginia begin contacting their various representatives, demanding that they not authorize the call for a new Constitutional Convention.

As I noted in my previous column on this subject, “If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once declared, ‘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.'”

Since 32 states have already approved the new Con Con, only 2 more states are required for the enactment of this debacle.

For clarification, Virginia already passed a Con Con resolution, but in 2004 rescinded that resolution. Therefore, the debate this year will be whether to reverse the bill to rescind. Simply put, the state legislature in Virginia may again take up the matter of issuing their call for a Constitutional Convention very soon, and citizens in that good state need to rally against it now!

To give readers a simple tally, the following states have never voted to ratify a new Constitutional Convention: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

These states voted for a new Constitutional Convention but later rescinded their resolutions: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Arizona, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia.

If you do not see your state listed above, it means your state indeed voted to call for a new Constitutional Convention and has not rescinded its vote. I strongly suggest that citizens of these states demand that their legislatures rescind their previous votes calling for a new Con Con. Start now!

Of course, the problem is, it is not clear whether the court will allow states to rescind their votes after having passed a Con Con resolution. Article. V. of the U.S. Constitution is vague on the subject, and there is no case law precedent on the matter. As far as I’m concerned, however, the Tenth Amendment settles the issue, and states should be regarded as fully qualified under the Constitution to determine their own fate in the matter. Since there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting rescission, states are duly authorized to rescind their votes, as they please. But I don’t expect the powers that be in Washington, D.C., to see it that way. Does anyone remember that little skirmish known as the Civil War? This, in essence, was the same view of the Confederate States: they voted to rescind their decisions to join the Union. The tyrant, Abraham Lincoln, determined that states have no such sovereignty (thus nullifying the Tenth Amendment, among several others) and sent the entire federal army to force the southern states back into the union. If history is any teacher, therefore, no state will be allowed to rescind their votes, and we are only two states away from a new Constitutional Convention being assembled.

There is no question in my mind that, should a new Constitutional Convention be called, it would be the end of the United States of America as we know it, and our current Constitution and Bill of Rights would be forever altered beyond recognition. The globalists who currently control Washington, D.C., and Wall Street are, no doubt, salivating over the opportunity to officially dismantle America’s independence and national sovereignty, and establish a globalist North American Union–in much the same way that globalists created the European Union. A new Constitutional Convention is exactly the tool they need to cement their sinister scheme into law.

I urge readers to contact their state representatives regarding this critical matter.

Posted to IPR by Paulie

40 thoughts on “Chuck Baldwin: Virginia takes US Constitutional Convention stage

  1. Jere Shocly**+ **

    This is for real. Free speech could be ended easily. No more internet opinions allowed. Think about it! Contact your reps in VA and the other 32 states today. Tomorrow might be too late!

  2. Brian D

    Does anyone know any specifics about which resolution the US Constitutional Convention would be on? I would like to know which state and resolutions, so I can call and complain about it. Thank You!

  3. David D

    I’d refrain from refering to Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant. After all, he did make the U.S. a freer country by abolishing slavery. Do you really refer to him as a tyrant. And yes I’ve heard all kinds of theories on exactly why he wanted to free the slaves. Even if they were true, we are still a much stronger nation for it. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want our “elected” officials screwing with our constitution. I was just turned off immediately hearing Lincoln referred to as a tyrant.

  4. Jamie

    I just want to praise you for such fine reporting. It is a shame that more “so called” reporters are not telling the people about this. I found you because I was searching out information on this very issue. Please keep up the good fight for those of us that are listening and willing to defend our country from the threat within.

  5. nonrepublicrat

    Lincoln was not only a tyrant, he was the worst kind of tyrant. No president has the right to send American armies against American people. The law of the constitution is greater than the authority of the president. Presidents must obey the constitution. They are not above it. Lincoln’s unconstitutional actions were criminal.

  6. nonrepublicrat

    I am learning to appreciate Baldwin more than ever. He is still doing all he can to fight for our freedoms, even now, after there is no more election to be won. That says a lot about him.

  7. tafkats

    Ahem … you guys do realize, don’t you, that even if a constitutional convention were called, its amendments would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states? Which is exactly the way it works without a convention, too?

  8. paulie cannoli Post author

    even if a constitutional convention were called, its amendments would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states?

    Not the case. Those are rules imposed by the Constitution. A constitutional convention can completely replace the constitution, not just amend it.

  9. tafkats

    Have you actually read the Constitution, paulie cannoli? Here, take a look:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    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.

  10. paulie cannoli Post author

    Have you actually read the Constitution, paulie cannoli?

    Yes, many times.

    Are you aware of what happened the last time there was a constitutional convention?

  11. tafkats

    Yes, I am. The Constitution was written. However, if you think that means a new constitutional convention can simply rewrite the document, you’re mistaken. Read Article V. It spells out EXACTLY how the Constitution can be changed. One method is for Congress to propose amendments, which must then be approved by three-fourths of the states. The other method is for a constitutional convention to propose amendments, which must then be approved by three-fourths of the states.

    In other words, a constitutional convention cannot do anything that Congress can’t do.

  12. paulie cannoli Post author

    However, if you think that means a new constitutional convention can simply rewrite the document, you’re mistaken. Read Article V. It spells out EXACTLY how the Constitution can be changed.

    Unless they come up with a new constitution, in which case the rules of the old constitution no longer apply.

    The last constitutional convention was only supposed to amend the Articles of Confederation, not replace them.

  13. tafkats

    Unless they come up with a new constitution, in which case the rules of the old constitution no longer apply.

    A constitutional convention is not allowed to do anything other than propose amendments. Period. For it to do anything else would require a coup d’etat.

  14. Trent Hill

    “A constitutional convention is not allowed to do anything other than propose amendments. Period. For it to do anything else would require a coup d’etat.”

    Not according to the Declaration of Indepedence.

  15. tafkats

    The Constitution cannot be repealed or replaced. To do so would require overthrowing the government — probably by force. The Constitution can only be amended. And while it is true that sweeping changes can be introduced by amending it, that possibility is there with or without a constitutional convention.

    Take off the tinfoil hat for a minute, will you?

  16. tafkats

    Or to put it another way: Me and five or six of my buddies could vote to rewrite the Constitution. All by ourselves. But since we don’t have the authority to do so, it would be meaningless.

  17. paulie cannoli Post author

    The Constitution cannot be repealed or replaced. To do so would require overthrowing the government — probably by force.

    Whether it would take force would depend on whether members of the military would follow orders.

    Take off the tinfoil hat for a minute, will you?

    Take off your blinders.

  18. Trent Hill

    “The Constitution cannot be repealed or replaced. To do so would require overthrowing the government — probably by force.”

    So we’re stuck under it….forever? Indefinetly?

  19. tafkats

    Good Lord.

    If our military leaders wanted to overthrow the government by force, they wouldn’t need a constitutional convention to do it. They would just need firepower.

    A constitutional convention would have no power that Congress doesn’t already have. You all seem to be under the impression that delegates could just wave a magic wand and make the Constitution disappear. When, in fact, if the convention proposed amendments that couldn’t get approved by three-fourths of the states, the amendments would simply not go into effect — as has happened several times before.

  20. paulie cannoli Post author

    If our military leaders wanted to overthrow the government by force, they wouldn’t need a constitutional convention to do it. They would just need firepower.

    They would not be overthrowing government from their perspective, just following the orders of their civilian command.

    Some elements of the military would consider the prior constitution to have been repealed illegally. The question is whether they would defy orders.

  21. paulie cannoli Post author

    OK, one more time again, slowly.

    The civilian commanders of the military would no longer consider themselves bound by the old constitution. They would operate under the new constitution, whatever that is. The military’s orders would come from their civilian command – President on down – which would all consider the prior constitution null and void.

  22. tafkats

    Why would the president, or anyone else in the government, consider the prior constitution null and void?

    How, exactly, are you envisioning this sequence of events happening?

    Let’s start at square one: There’s a constitutional convention, convened according to Article V. The convention makes recommendations for amendments. One of two things can happen: Either (a) the amendments can be ratified, as has happened 17 times since the passage of the Bill of Rights, or (b) they can fail, as has happened several times as well.

    Are you imagining that the amendments will fail, and the president will say “Hey, guess what, I’m declaring these amendments to be in effect anyway”?

  23. paulie cannoli Post author

    How, exactly, are you envisioning this sequence of events happening?

    Constitutional convention gets together.

    Junks the constitution and comes up with a new one. Not amendments – a completely different constitution.

    The rules for amendment under the old constitution no longer apply.

    The president, and all or virtually all high ranking officials in a ll branches of government, will consider themselves bound by the new constitution, not the old one.

    That the prior rules for amendment were not followed will matter to very few people in power.

    Given the level of general knowledge, it will also matter to relatively few people in the general public.

    Since the right to criticize the government might not exist anymore, if enough people do raise a stink about it to annoy the powers that be, they might decide to do something about such people. But it is more likely that they will perceive any such objections as relatively harmless, because so few people will be making them that hardly anyone will care.

  24. tafkats

    Junks the constitution and comes up with a new one. Not amendments – a completely different constitution.

    The rules for amendment under the old constitution no longer apply.

    I don’t know if it’s confusion about cause-and-effect relationships or just a case of raging paranoia, but you’ve got things all turned around.

    A constitutional convention cannot simply grant itself carte blanche to rewrite the constitution and then say “See, under the new constitution, we have this power!” The reason for this is that the current constitution is still in effect, and in the process you describe, the process for amending it will not have been followed; therefore it will not be amended. If any government tried to govern according to this fairy-tale new constitution, it would be promptly struck down by the courts; if the president and secretary of defense lost their minds and said “Hey, guess what, this new constitution says it’s illegal to criticize the government, so we’re declaring it to be in effect and sending the military out to arrest everyone we don’t like,” the military would rebel.

    (By the way, are you really imagining that a constitutional convention composed of citizens from all 50 states would vote to outlaw criticism of the government?)

    This whole scenario is patently ridiculous; it belongs alongside “Bush planned 9/11,” “Obama wants to institute Sharia law,” and “the government is trying to take over our brains with secret alien mind-control rays” in the pantheon of absurd conspiracy theories dreamed up by paranoid nutballs.

  25. Gabriel

    You two bicker like little children

    tafkats

    You are sadly mis-informed. First these is no guarantee as to what is to be discussed. When a state ratifies a con-con they are sadly misinformed that their initial reasoning for the ratification will even be addressed.

    Second – There is no guarantee as to the appropriated delegates will consist of, which leaves a door open for special interest groups. And if yo try to argue that special interest groups couldn’t possibly have any effect, frankly you’re a moron.

    3rd – Any amendment that they make, goes into effect immediately. Which means if they decide that you can no longer carry a gun, they can come to your house 1 second after it is passed and take all your firearms from you.

    4th- If you look at the evidence surrounding September 11th, there is little to no proof that it was orchestrated by Bin Laden, in fact it is not mentioned on his wanted poster that he had anything to do with it. The simple fact that there was no in depth investigation, and the fact that Bush refused to allow any more investigation into 9/11, says a lot in itself. We knew about the pending attack on Pearl Harbor days before it happened, yet this information was completely ignored, ergo giving us a justification to enter WW2,just like 9/11 gave us a reason to enter into the HOLY OIL war. Again if you think Irag was about freedom, you are again…a moron.

    And finally…

    In regards to you statement..

    “A constitutional convention cannot simply grant itself carte blanche to rewrite the constitution and then say “See, under the new constitution, we have this power!” The reason for this is that the current constitution is still in effect, and in the process you describe, the process for amending it will not have been followed; therefore it will not be amended”

    Correct me if I am wrong, but there things written into the constitution that have been taken away from us, without the need for a con-con, like our privacy for instance. And you really think that they plan on following the rules when they never have in the past?

    Are you really trying to justify all of your information based on this misinformed statement?

    The military is controlled by the government, to assume that the military would “overthrow” the government is absolutely absurd.

  26. Jennie Crist

    Hamilton, Mt. I just came from a meeting where Chuck Baldwin was the guest speaker. He was full of engery and hope for the people of the United States of America. We all need to fight to get back and keep our freedom here in the United States Of America!!!!!! You go Chuck!!!!!

  27. Kathy Kilcommons

    What is being planned is a “Continental Congress” not a “Constitutional” one. Before everyone goes running off half-cocked to decry this, they should look up and find out what it is all about, including this author. Please check out givemeliberty.org before making any hasty decisions. Thanks.

  28. Thomas E. Brennan

    The convention of 1787 was called by the continental congress, though admittedly they were pushed into it because representatives of several states were already planning to meet in Philadelphia.
    Madison & company proposed that their constitution wold become effective upon ratification by 9 of the 13 states — not quite 3/4.
    Having the constitutional right to assemble, any group of citizens can hold a convention and propose anything they choose to propose and send it to the states to be ratified.
    Or, I suppose, they could just send it to the President and the Congress and ask them to ignore their oaths of office and take new oaths to support their new constitution.
    Either way, such a rump convention’s work would have two chances of success — slim and none. And Slim is out of town.
    A legal Article V convention is a cumberome, difficult, careful but necessary process to frame amendments which the Congress, because of their self interest, refuses to consider or propose. Congressional term limits, for example.
    A legal Article V convention can only propose amendments to the existing constitution, and those proposals will only become part of the constitution when ratified by three fourths of the states.
    See http://www.FOAVC.org. There a group of patriots have set aside left and right political views to push for a convention. There you will see that 750 petitions have been filed in and ignored by the Congress. More than one from every state.
    It is time for all Americans of good will to join hands and fix our government. Ben Franklin said it is a Republic, “if you can keep it.”
    Together, we can keep it.

  29. Vince DeMattia

    First of all, what is being proposed is NOT a Constitutional Convention… that would be so if folks were seeking to initiate a new Constitution. That is not the case. This is different. We are looking to take back some of the outrageous powers and policies that the present money-hungry, special interest accomplices have passed for themselves. If you like what these people are doing, then you’re part of the problem. We need to wrest the power from these people who do not care about the people of the United States… just themselves and the people they work for… lobbyists and special interest. So please, don’t use the legitimate members (and there are many illegitimate people paid to be members to blurt out their rehearsed key phrases, etc.) to make your point here. This Congress needs to be changed. The people need to get the power given to them by the Constitution, back from these criminals who have exploited all the holes in the Constitution created by time and Societal and Political changes. Right-Wingers… indoctrinated and contagious.

  30. Cody Quirk

    [Kinda like empty headed Palin and her ‘room temperature IQ’ brood?]

    Nope. Especially compared to a toilet-paper headed Lake and his bag of Trix cereal.

  31. wolfefan

    Just wondering – how does it happen that these CP/AIP threads sit dormant for a year and then start up again? Who responds to something from over a year ago as if it were current? This doesn’t happen with any but CP/AIP threads… no one is trying to resurrect the “Leading Libertarian Thinker Wayne Root” thread or any Howie Hawkins Green thread from several months back. What is it about these people/threads in particular?

  32. Don Grundmann

    wolfefan – Mark Seidenberg has restarted the mass majority of these threads by writing under one of his many fake names in order to attempt to make the last comment on the thread a negative attack on the Constitution Party or Chelene Nightingale. He does this all over the internet.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

  33. Franklin Brooks

    The way that I understand a new Constitutional Convention, is that it would strip the Constitution’s amendments down to the orignal 10 which is commonly known as the bill of rights, however the convention would be left with the constitution in it’s original form, we may think that some of the negative consequencies may result such as a return to some of the acts that were practiced two hundred years ago, but that isn’t so, because we are a more developed society now, and I don’t think anyone has the nerve to return to our past, but we definatley would benefit if some of the amendments were removed.

Leave a Reply