Mother’s Day and the Constitution
The commercial goes, “They go together in the good old USA, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet.” I’ll add Mother’s Day and the US Constitution to the list.
Some things should never be changed. Many of us share a common angst over the direction our Country is headed. We may be able to agree on the problem, but there is a huge difference in how we approach the cure.
Changing our Constitution won’t fix our struggles and will only make them worse. An effort is underway to alter our Constitution. Those proposing a Convention of the States think if we have different laws it will make our Congress behave better. There are some good people pushing this idea and while they may not expect harm to come, they’re taking a gamble on our future. The most charitable way to treat this issue is to understand the naivete in which the proponents are submerged.
Saying “Sorry” won’t be enough to undo the damage if we lose our Constitution. People on both sides of the issue are so far apart that both can’t be right. There is no middle ground. The effort to change our Constitution may be well-intentioned, but once we lose it we will never be able to get it back.
We would walk through the door that only swings one way. The elected officials are in charge of the entire process. The people have no vote in the final result. That’s one of the risks of a Republic. The only hope we have is to inform and educate the representatives before they vote to push this idea further into the process.
Ideas from the left end of the political spectrum are often halted because of Constitutional restraints. The fact that those who don’t like our Constitution are supportive of this Convention of the States is a concern. This should be enough evidence for us to know it won’t end well.
The biggest reason I am opposed to it is because I have seen the ugly underbelly of government and I understand how deception and trickery work. Laws are passed every year with hidden words, ambiguous verbiage or a deletion of a critical word that alters the meaning altogether. These are just a few of the games politicians play. It’s called chicanery. While the idea sounds good in theory, it’s terribly flawed in practical experience.
That’s why government in all areas seem to be moving to the left regardless of which party is in the majority. I’m sure you’ve all heard the expression, “How could I have been so stupid”. Let’s do all we can to spread the word so this doesn’t happen to us.
What is your opinion on the idea of changing our Constitution through the Convention of the States?
1.) When folks bring up the idea of a Convention of the States, please have them listen to our show this week. We talk with Dr. Scott Bradley, expert on the Convention of the States. He will paint a clear picture of what’s at stake. You don’t have to be an expert on the subject as long as you can point them to others who can explain it.
Click here to listen to Home Front now.
2.) The Home Front Computer had a melt-down! As you can see from our photo, we’re grateful nothing worse happened. If you would like to contribute toward the computer replacement fund, please consider making it possible for the technical aspects of our outreach to continue.
We need your involvement to fund our ongoing research and equipment needs. If you want to continue to support us in this effort, you can mail a check to this address:
Cynthia Davis, 1008 Highway K, O’Fallon, MO 63366.
3.) If you have an event where you need a speaker, please let me know. I am dedicating my energy on the places where I can make the greatest difference. Please let the meeting organizer know that I can help your group understand the intersection of government and families in a way they may have never known before. If you want me to come and help your efforts to educate and motivate your network, please click this button here:
Click here to listen to this informative podcast, or subscribe on:
iTunes / Google Play / More Optioins
A LITTLE BIT OF HUMOR
I am absolutely opposed to the Convention of States. People don’t realize that this opens the whole Constitution for rewrite. It is extremely dangerous. That is why our founders made it so difficult to do.
You said “this opens the whole Constitution for rewrite”. That is not true. Article V itself states that the Convention is to PROPOSE amendments to the ADDED to the rest of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Convention of States application (the resolution in MO now) is limited to 3 specific areas and anything else would be thrown out immediately by parliamentary procedure.
You said: “It is extremely dangerous. That is why our founders made it so difficult to do.”
Those two things, dangerous, and difficult to do, do not make sense together. If it was EASY to do, then dangerous might be the word, but IT REALLY IS hard to do, so it is NOT dangerous. The bar is very high not only for proposals (2/3) but even higher for ratification. Only 13 state houses out of 99 can stop anything.
What IS dangerous is doing nothing, and the Framers knew that and said so.
Amendments SHOULD be provided to correct defects, thus preventing “chance and violence”
To suggest that the Constitution today has the same interpretation as that of Founder’s intent is sheer folly and a COS as the Founder’s provided appears to the the only way to restore it’s original meaning. Progressives have over the past century through judicial activism so misinterpreted the meaning of the original intended Constitution as to render it all but meaningless.
“The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” – Winston Churchill
Please tell me, Lloyd, what amendment could possibly be written that would make the federal government start abiding by the Constitution? The ratifying requirement of 3/4 of the states didn’t prevent the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments, did it. Those 2, by the way are among the pillars that have made the exponential growth of the federal government possible. And you should bear in mind that we don’t have anywhere near the wisdom in government now that we had in centuries past.
You may also be aware that at the original Constitutional Convention, the ratification requirement by the states was changed from unanimous to 3/4. Do you think you can stop them from changing it again? What if such a convention were to take place when another Marxist like Obama is President? Do you think he and his minions will not be working behind the scenes to control the outcome? Our Constitution is the only thing standing between us and the same abject tyranny so much of the rest of the world has experienced. Be very careful what you wish for.
You said “he ratifying requirement of 3/4 of the states didn’t prevent the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments, did it. ”
In those days, easily proven, there was a BIG progressive movement. There was NO conservative movement that could counter it. These amendment were proposed by Congress, not the states, which gives it a sort of stamp of approval. And they should not have been ratified.
But one of the objectives allowed under the COS Resolution IS to repeal these 2 amendments or parts of them.
So if you do NOT like a Convention of State, you will not be in favor of getting rid of any part of them because there absolutely is not other way that it will happen.
And as far as the progressive movement goes back then and now, you should be aware that George Soros and 220 of his organizations are AGAINST the Convention of States movement.
Tell me, which side of that fence do you want to be on?
Exposed: George Soros launches campaign against Convention of States
You are correct. I have heard the COS proponents state their case. When they do, 3 things stand out to me. They make it sound like only good amendments will be proposed, only conservatives will be participating, and the federal government will not be involved. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the problem is the Constitution is being ignored tells me the Constitution is not the problem. If it is not the problem, tampering with it is also not the solution. As they say, the first step to solving any problem is to correctly identify the problem.
We’re fighting an uphill battle because of the rampant ignorance of the public. The Constitutional solution to that is to get the government out of the field of education. Without that, it is a matter of time before the majority are completely incapable of rationally and logically defending their liberty because they have no understanding of the foundations that make it possible. This is the battle of democracy mentioned in the Communist Manifesto, and why the left wants us to believe that America is a democracy instead of a Republic. The difference is fundamental, and not one person in one hundred understands it.
You said “They make it sound like only good amendments will be proposed, only conservatives will be participating, and the federal government will not be involved.”
The ONLY part for the Federal government to do is ministerial, counting the applications and renting the room at a time for the Convention.
No one said only conservatives would be at the convention. I will note however, that about 75% of the state houses are now in Republican control. And given than only 13 of the 99 state houses can stop a bad amendment, there is no cause for concern.
You also said: ” Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the problem is the Constitution is being ignored tells me the Constitution is not the problem.”
The Feds DO follow the Constitution, the annotated Constitution which is the original plus all the court decisions, laws passed, regulations, and more for over 200 years.
Here is a pic of the Constitution they follow. If you do not like that and want the small one, COSProject is your ONLY hope.
A Constitutional Convention is a terrible idea. It can’t be controlled and we can easily lose everything. Amend the Constitution one Amendment at a time through the established procedure.
Marshall, you said:
“A Constitutional Convention is a terrible idea.”
The Framers would disagree with you on that. In fact, a study of the 1787 convention reveals the Constitution would not have been proposed without Article V. ALL of the Framers approved Article V and knew that Congress would NEVER propose amendments to Limit Congress and said so in the convention.
And they have not limited themselves, which is why we have the current problem.
Also, you said: “It can’t be controlled and we can easily lose everything.”
As I showed above in other replies, it can be controlled and will be. You statement has no merit.
You also said: “Amend the Constitution one Amendment at a time through the established procedure.”
The Bill of Rights were 10 amendments at one time. Do you reject them? Or all but one?
The Framers established two procedures in Article V. Do you reject the Framers?
Just want to mention that George Soros is against COS project with 220 groups.
This truly shows who are the conservatives, the Constitutionalists, he hates most.
PDF 200+ groups – Constitutional Rights and Public Interest Groups Oppose Calls for an Article V Constitutional Convention
Our Constitution was written as it is for good reason, with forethought by people of goodwill and good heart. It has served us well for over two centuries and will continue to do so. I am opposed to Convention of States.