Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Article V Con Con, by Gary Marbut

Gary Marbut writes:
"I have less enthusiasm than some of my friends for an Article V Constitutional Convention (or “convention of the states”; here “ConCon”) (yes, I've read Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments).
I agree in spades with all ConCon proponents that our Nation is in very dire straits, and that we must do something soon to tame the runaway federal monster or give up on the idea of individual liberty. However, the Article V ConCon idea seems to me to be grasping at the ...wrong straw, for two primary reasons:
1) I don't imagine that a federal government which ignores the current Constitution would pay much more attention to an improved Constitution – at least it would quickly create workarounds for restrictions that block or reverse expansion of federal power, and
2) for the process to be ultimately successful depends on five, serial, political successes, political successes in a Nation which elected Obama as President.
These essential political successes would include:
a) The threshold number of states enacting exactly the same call;
b) A hostile Congress scheduling the ConCon in a timely manner and without monkeying up the process;
c) The people of the states electing the right type of ConCon delegates to enable success at the ConCon;
d) The ConCon's assembled delegates approving the right stuff (from our perspective); and
e) The threshold number of states approving the work of the ConCon.
I see each one of these necessarily serial steps as being unlikely to succeed. Linked in series, as they necessarily must be, I see the odds of ultimate success for the whole series as being effectively zero.
For example, even suppose we assign a 50% chance of success at each step (I wouldn't rate the odds that high). Arithmetically, that gives the entire effort a .015% chance of success. That's less than 2/100ths of 1% chance of success. Because of that, I hate to see the people of the US invest any effort or hope into this effort, as that might sidetrack or forestall other efforts with greater likelihood of success.
I don't quarrel at all with the ConCon proponents that we are in dire straights, and that we must rise to the occasion to DO SOMETHING, but I believe it must be something with a greater likelihood of success that doesn't waste what may be the last opportunity of this critical historical crossroads.
Certainly, I would be glad to be proven wrong in this assessment.
I do have an alternate idea which I believe would have a greater chance of success at leashing the federal monster than an Article V ConCon.See: http://www.marbut.com/csc 

Monday, January 20, 2014

Make no mistake - NO Article V Con Con!

It seems there are those in support of Convention of the States and Article V Constitutional Convention  are reaching out to MT Legislators via telephone that have misrepresenting my position about an Article V Constitutional Convention.

If you have heard from anyone via telephone expressing that Lark is now in favor of such a foolish adventure as to call a Convention of the States to propose Amendments to our US Constitiution... be advised - they are Lying Liars.

Those who populate Government may be way off track of following and adhering to the Constitution, however additional amendment(s) may well give them MORE latitude not less, and of course the danger of its total dissolution.

Of course the John Birch Society has long advocated for the Constitution and our American Way of Life and strongly opposes any call for an Article V Constitutional Convention.

Articles at The New American -

Phyllis Schlafly Eagle Forum opposes - http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/

Dr. Edward J. Vieira Phd JD Opposes

Publius Hulda Opposes

Who is supporting this misadventure is more important to know than who is opposed to it. Those supporting an Article V Con Con to uncertain ends may be thought of as opposites politically on the surface. My Alarm is raised when I see 'Council on Foreign Relations' and 'Trilateral Commission' and George Soros' 'Open Society' amongst them - all known to be FOR Ultimate Global Governance. I see that the new 'freedom movement' aka TEA Party, has been infiltrated and co-opted by progressive forces, [which by the way have been hovering since 2009] trying to misdirect, mislead, and make $hay$ as they may - of the increasing public dissatisfaction with corruption in government.

Here are two articles listing the proponents to this risky business:

 The Constitution is the Solution!