The Looming Con-Con

Picture from
Picture from

According to an email from Delegate Bob Marshall sent a few moments ago, tomorrow two pieces of legislation regarding a constitutional convention will come before the Rule Committee in the Virginia House of Delegates.  They are HJ 497 sponsored by Delegate Scott Lingamfelter and HJ 499 by Delegate Jim LeMunyon.

Although many of us would agree that the federal government has grossly exceeded the authority granted to it by the U.S. Constitution, we have considerable reservations about a constitutional convention.  Given that the 9th and 10th Amendments are routinely ignored, why would the federal government decide to honor some new amendment that would limit its power?  Unfortunately, an Article V Convention, as proposed by these bills and others, could end up merely legitimizing the century and a half of usurpation that has already taken place.

As Delegate Marshall writes, “Once called by Congress, the Convention cannot be stopped or limited and will have complete authority to change any part of our Constitution!   The only other convention, held in 1787, re-wrote the Articles of Confederation, and changed the ratification requirements from unanimous to three fourths!  Yes, it gave us our present Constitution, but we had many statesmen of moral conviction who fought the War of Independence leading the nation at that time.  Madison said he trembled at the thought of a second convention after witnessing the first!”

He goes on to add, “The state legislators planning the Article V Convention rejected a motion that would have prevented Members of Congress, the US Senate, federal judges and governors from serving as convention delegates.  They also tabled a motion to restrict the subject matter of the convention.”

Anyone who cares about a constitutionally limited government certainly can be sympathetic to the aims of those proposing an Article V Convention.  However, so far the case has not been sufficiently made to do so.  It seems a far better remedy is to demand that our legislators in Washington adhere to the Constitution and replace though who have failed in this duty.  In addition, we need to elect representatives to the General Assembly in Richmond who are not afraid to draw the line and say no to the federal government, show how the feds have violated the Constitution, and fight against any and all encroachment when necessary.

Delegate Marshall concludes his email by saying, “Please also urge your own state delegate and senator to OPPOSE ALL APPLICATIONS ASKING CONGRESS TO CALL AN ARTICLE V CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.”

6 Replies to “The Looming Con-Con”

  1. THE CON-CON IS A CON!!! Of course, the words of Mark Levin, Michael Farris, and others of that persuasion sound good. A con has no chance of success if it isn’t convincing. There are only two types of people pushing for for the convention: Socialist-loving conspirators (think George Soros here) that know this is a scam and are knowingly trying to fool you into favoring a con-con, or people that really have the best wishes for the future of the United States at heart but have drunk the kool aid of the first group and are now clamoring for the article V convention. That is, they are unknowingly being used by the socialists/communists to further their agenda, all the while thinking they are doing a good thing. Stalin knew this tactic and coined the term, referring to these people, as useful idiots. The truth of the matter is that the only reason to have a constitutional convention is that it would be the means of throwing away the constitution we have.

  2. My understanding is the the Convention of States seeks to offer amendments to the US Constitution – it does not seek to replace it. I understand Article V of the Constitution to grant this power and exercising it would be a fully constitutional act. One may even suggest that a failure to act is a dereliction of duty for any serious citizen. You say there is a risk, but you do not articulate a single one. And, you distort the truth by labeling it a Constitutional Convention – implying that folks are looking to rewrite the Constitution. What is going on here is that serious minded citizens are seeking to exercise a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    What are your specific reasons for opposing it? Please describe in detail the risks you assert but do not articulate.

    I have an obligation to know why you are so opposed. My obligation is two fold. Your reasons may be sound. It is my responsibility to be properly informed of other viewpoints if my own is to be well informed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *