For the purpose of this article the Baby is the Constitution and the Bath Water (which is usually pretty dirty) is the ConCon, Convention of the States or whatever name you want to give it. I have written about my feeling on this several times before and now I’m angry.
We have hard hitting Americans who influence the people of this country pushing for this monster – Mark Levin, George Soros, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, David Barton, Michael Farris, Mark Meckler and others and THEN we have organizations that are portraying themselves as Constitutional supportive Americans that are also supporting a ConCon. All of these people have an AGENDA as to why they want YOU to BELIEVE this is the thing to do.
To begin with, all these hard hitters in support of the ConCon might do well to actually learn what the Constitution says especially those like Michael Farris who calls himself a Constitutional lawyer. I would remind the readers so does Obama!
Have they ever told you there is a NEW Constitution sitting on the sidelines for them to vote on if they choose to? Have they told you that behind closed doors some of them refer to our country as a Democracy and not a Republic? The president and legislators may be acting like we are a democracy – even stating so, however according to the Constitution of the United States we are still a REPUBLIC and there is an order of the way things should be done. To call some of these people liars is a gentle word.
Let’s start with “MoveToAmend” an online website gathering signatures to push for their support of a ConCon. They have a great deal of organizations that are supporting their efforts and they claim they have 330,178 signatures to prove it. Look at their national leaders – do you really want these Occupy, Liberal Democrats and the likes of George Soros leading the pack FOR a ConCon?
The web page also states “End Corporate Rule, Legalize Democracy”. That should get your attention. They claim their organization was founded because of a Supreme Court ruling on January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.
It goes on to say, “The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule”.
REPUBLIC: That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.
DEMOCRACY: That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each INDIVUAL person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the GROUP. (In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.)
When you read it this way you can better understand why SOME want to get rid of our flag and show no respect for it stating it’s just a piece of fabric, but when you say the Pledge of Allegiance you are not only pledging to the flag, but is the representation of the Republic.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Remember, some of these supporters of a ConCon also want to rid our country of God.
Who are the people (BOD) behind this Move To Amend group? Ashley Sanders, long-time community activist, works for Peaceful Uprising a climate justice organization and helped organize Occupy Freedom DC and Salt Lake City; David Cobb, a lawyer who devotes himself to full time activism to achieve real democracy in the United States; Daniel Lee, is an active member of Occupy Los Angeles and InterOccupy. He participated in Occupy encampments across the country as well as done community organizing locally in Los Angeles; and George Friday who has a degree in political science, is a community organizer and works on social justice change. There are 6 more with similar backgrounds but I am not going to bore you – you get the picture!
So this group wants to use a ConCon to make the world a better place by becoming a democracy on the Progressive, social justice side.
Here comes the right side – or those who tell us they are Conservative and believe in the Republic.
Mark Levin – I was a follower of Mark Levin however I cannot find a rational reason he is supporting/pushing the ConCon other than to back up what he stated in his book. My personal observation tells me that he has NOT done his homework. He also does not believe in Nullification – hum!
Levin’s reason for a ConCon is a “balanced budget” amendment of which makes no sense. We have laws on the books that require a budget every year to be submitted and passed – anyone know how long it has been since we even had a budget let alone a balanced one? If legislators cannot follow the laws we already have what makes the supporters of the ConCon think another amendment would change that?
What Mark Levin said in his book “The Liberty Amendments” is simply not true. His reasoning of a “balanced budget” amendment actually would legalize Congress’ unconstitutional spending and it does absolutely nothing to control the debt. The original writings of our Framers actually told the states what to do when the government violates the Constitution – Nullification of the unlawful act is among the first of the recommended remedies – not one of which is an "amendment of the Constitution". States should nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government yet most of the 50 states are refusing to do that! Why?
In Federalist No.44 ((12th paragraph from end), Madison says elect more faithful representatives! But we keep reelecting the same sorry people because we know their names and they are in our party. So then you go read Washington’s Farewell address and he tells you the political parties will be the ruination of the country because of the egos of men – those very same men who are trying to tell us we need a ConCon so they can change whatever they want into whatever they want.
Those of us who respect our Constitution don’t want to change it but require Federal and State officials to obey the Constitution we have or elect ones who will. The Oath of Office in Art. VI, last clause, requires federal and state officials to support the Constitution. This requires them to refuse to submit to acts of the federal government which violate the Constitution. The Oath of Office requires obedience to the Constitution alone. The Oath does not require obedience to persons, to any agency of the federal government, or to any federal court.
David Barton – My spiritual self cannot get a handle on his support of this ConCon venture of which even his explanation is not clear – it’s like walking endlessly in a fog continually asking yourself ‘where did I miss the signs’, or ‘can I believe anything he has said’ and better still ‘can I still trust my gut instincts”? I have always had very good discernment – sometimes to a fault as people think I am “stuck-up” and it’s not that at all. I love people, but I never walk into a room until I have scoped it out entirely and find the best place to put myself. Actually this used to drive my kids nuts when they were growing up especially when it came to some of their choices in friends.
Michael Farris – He is referred to as a Constitutional Attorney (although this writer has found following KrisAnne Hall to be more truthful when it comes to constitutional law). He is the Executive Director of ParentalRights.org; founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and Patrick Henry College. Home Schooler’s parents all over the country look to Farris almost as their protector and savior from the big bad wolves and he could be. But his total distortion in regards to the Parental Rights Act (PRA) is leading all parents down a path of parental rights destruction.
The Declaration of Independence tells us our Rights come from God not the government; they are unalienable. The very purpose of the government is to SECURE the rights God gave to us and when the government seeks to take away our rights it is time to throw them out with the “bath water”. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights enumerates 30 + rights and states they come from “man” (constitution or laws). Not God but Man! Wrong!
Now to take a look at Michael Farris web site parentalrights.org and see what he says about our Rights. If you take the time to go to the web site you will see that once again it is being stated parental rights are coming from the Constitution and not God. That they are fundamental rights not unalienable rights. So now from what I read on the PR website they state:
Today the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is approaching a possible ratification by the United States Senate. This treaty, as harmless as it may appear, is capable of attacking the very core of the child-parent relationship, removing parents from their central role in the growth and development of a child, and replacing them with the long arm of government supervision within the home.
I will take Mr. Farris’ own words and turn them back on him. Yes the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a very dangerous document and must never be agreed to by the United States; however, Mr. Farris uses that as an example to his followers as the very reason to support his PRA when they are no different. Both state parental rights are coming from the government not GOD. I wonder if some of the very religious Home School families realize this.
Now Mr. Farris, for unclear reasons, has decided we should put our entire Constitution on the line in aiding those who wish to firm up our country as a Democracy or even worse Tyranny by government.
From Publius Hildah Parental rights: God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable? 7/2-/13) Farris uses Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s Dissent in Troxel v. Granville (2000) using this to support his own theory that unless a right is enumerated in the federal Constitution, judges can't enforce it, and the right can't be protected. Scalia’s stated in part: parental rights are “unalienable and come from God and are from the 9th Amendment; the Declaration of Independence does NOT delegate power to the federal courts – only the federal constitution; It is for State Legislators and candidates for that office to argue that the State has no power to interfere with parents' God-given authority over the rearing of their children, and to act accordingly. [The People need to elect State Legislators who understand that the State may not properly infringe God given parental rights]; the federal Constitution does not authorize judges to come up with their own lists of what "rights" people have; and the federal Constitution does not mention "parental rights" so the federal courts have no “judicial power” over these types of cases.
In his closing, Scalia warned against turning family law over to the federal government:
"…If we embrace this un-enumerated right ... we will be ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed, family law. I have no reason to believe that federal judges will be better at this than state legislatures; and state legislatures have the great advantages of doing harm in a more circumscribed area, of being able to correct their mistakes in a flash, and of being removable by the people."
Parental Rights are a state issue so again, maybe Mr. Farris should go back to law school. When he says: "4. The Parental Rights Amendment does not give the Judiciary legislative power but constrains the judiciary's exercise of its existing power” his words are false. The PRA expressly delegates power to the federal and state governments to infringe on God-given parental rights.
Do you want this man being in charge of any part of a ConCon or even believe his arguments?
Mark Meckler - Last but certainly not least is Mark Meckler the former co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) who at the time was drawing a monthly salary of $12K from grassroots donators to the TPP as well as Jennie Beth Martin and her husband. Meckler has moved on to forming Citizens for Self-Governance where he is the President. He states “their focus is on broadening the philosophical reach of the idea of 'self-governance' outside of the Tea Party movement". So much for the former support of the grassroots guys! Now he is trying to play with the big boys!
His simple and mis-guided reasoning for the support of a ConCon is “By calling a convention of states, we can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power. The current situation is precisely what the Founders feared, and they gave us a solution we have a duty to use." The actual solution is nullification not reframing the Constitution.
This is interesting as we already have laws and the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in place with a feeding of the Federalist Papers to oversee all of what he mentions. The problem is the Politicians refuse to abide by any of them – so what is the point of adding more amendments?
Just what is the point gentlemen? Since you prescribe yourselves as Conservatives, what the hell are you doing lying in bed with George Soros!