SHOCK! WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING? Is Our Favorite Judge (Andrew Napolitano) A Con-Con Supporter?
By Kelleigh Nelson | October 17, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
In the late 70s and early 80s, many grassroots Americans found out about the movement for a new Constitutional Convention (con-con). By 1986, 32 of the 34 states needed for a new constitutional convention had passed calls for a convention. The reason used for this call for a con-con was for a balanced budget amendment. Sounds great doesn’t it? However, it was a ruse used by those who want to radically change our constitution and basically destroy the founding fathers’ document. Many of the states and most of the legislators that called for a con-con did so without any public oversight or knowledge, basically because it was a good sounding conservative idea to require a balanced budget amendment.
Seven to ten of the 32 states have succeeded in recalling their calls for a con-con, including Alabama, Louisiana and Florida. The opportunity to change the constitution exists in Article V, which says the constitution can be changed in two ways, either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress sending an amendment to the states and three-quarters of the states ratifying it, (which is how we have ratified every amendment since the Bill of Rights). The other way is to have two-thirds of the states, that is, 34 states petitioning Congress for a Constitutional Convention. When the latter is used, the entire document is taken down and re-examined.
The proponents of a con-con under the guise of a balanced budget amendment still believe that if they get another two states who call for a balanced budget amendment that they can open a convention, despite the states that have recalled their calls. Con-con supporter James Dale Davidson of the National Taxpayers’ Union even stated that he didn’t care if the con-con couldn’t be limited to the Balanced Budget. As well, Henry Hazlitt (renowned conservative) was the NTU’s economic advisor wrote a book in 1974 entitled, “A New Constitution Now.” The book is extremely alarming because in the book he says, “an amendment could be proposed that would strike out everything after ‘We the people,’ “ and that of course includes the Bill of Rights.
Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger (no friend of conservatives) vigorously opposed convening a constitutional convention. He wrote in 1988, “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that 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. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “
We also have a warning directly from the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison when the states of New York and Virginia formally petitioned Congress in 1788 to call for a con-con to propose amendments to the Constitution, which had only been completed a year before. Madison wrote this letter, “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the congress…It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides…[and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts…might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric…Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America.” Just imagine a Constitutional Convention in today’s climate and sans the statesmen like our founding fathers.
I too tremble at the thought of a Constitutional Convention and unfortunately a new threat is on the horizon and comes from sources one would least expect. Judge Andrew Napolitano is often a guest on the Fox Network Glenn Beck Show. My first inkling that Judge Napolitano was pro-Constitutional Convention, was at the end of the Glenn Beck show on May 1st, 2009 when Glenn’s audience were tea party attendees from across the nation. At the end of this program, Judge Napolitano stated that we needed a Constitutional Convention to eliminate the 16th amendment (income taxes).
On April 23, 2009, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece by Professor Randy Barnett. Barnett is a law professor at Georgetown University, “The Case for a Federalism Amendment: How the Tea Partiers can make Washington Pay Attention.” Judge Napolitano has had Professor Barnett on his program several times to discuss the “necessity” for a Constitutional Convention.
At this point, one must remember that Fox News Channel is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who in May of 2007 also purchased Dow Jones who also owns The Wall Street Journal. As well, on May 8, 2006, the Financial Times reported that Murdoch would be hosting a fundraiser for Senator Hillary Clinton’s Senate reelection campaign. Murdoch also owns the New York Post and was asked in a 2008 interview with Walt Mossberg if he had anything to do with the New York Post’s endorsement of Barack Obama. Without hesitating, Murdoch replied, “Yeah. He is a rock star. It’s fantastic. I love what he is saying about education……”
READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE:
My personal opinion - for whatever that's worth ...A Con-Con would be the end of the Republic....PERIOD!
I've also wondered about
I've also wondered about Andrew Napolitano, though not specifically about the con-con issue, but about a different issue. Over the years, I'd become curious, where does Napolitano stand on the issue of illegal immigration? I've never seen him go into any graeat detail about it in the years I watched Fox news(don't watch it any longer, except youtube clips). Does Napolitano side with the ACLU who seems to do everything they can to block efforts at enforcing laws against illegal immigration, or does he agree with Ron Paul about enforcing the laws, securing the borders and no citizenship for illegal aliens as well as Ron Paul's stance that the 14th amendment should not grant automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? Speaking of the 14th amendment(one with Ron Paul's views of it), here are a few links
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_...
http://www.14thamendment.us/info/what_can_be_done.html
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_j...
Awhile back I couldn't find any info from a google search on what Napolitano thinks about illegal immigration, but recently I saw this video which unfortunately made it sound like Napolitano was probably not on the same page as Ron Paul(if anyone can offer some credible evidence to prove otherwise, please do).
http://americanpatrol.com/WMV/You%20Lie%20O'Reilly%2010-9-09%201.wmv
In this video, Napolitano seems to be citing the Plyer vs. Doe case, to argue that illegal aliens should automatically be covered under Obama's health care bill. Plyler vs Doe was a 5-4 ruling, so it was as close as can be(and just one more vote against it would have allowed schools to exclude illegal aliens) and the dissenting opinion from Chief Justice Warren Burger said "The court employs, and in my view abuses, the Fourteenth Amendment in an effort to become an omnipotent and omniscient problem solver." What's so bad about it is it seems to basically be saying illegal aliens are entitled to the same rights as a U.S. citizen, which makes it much harder to solve the problem of illegal immigration.
For some more info on that, check this link
http://federalistblog.us/2008/03/supreme_fraud_plyler_v_doe....
For decades, we have had tons of people crossing our borders who do not live in the U.S., who enroll their kids in our public shools(and do not have to pay anything and do not pay taxes here), at the expense of U.S. citizens, and due to plyler vs doe, the schools cannot turn them away.
According to an official policy paper on solutions to the illegal immigration problem by the American Legion:
"The Center for Immigration Studies [CIS] estimated that in 2007 there were 1.5 million school age [5 to 17] illegal aliens in the country. Therewere also 1.8 million U.S.-born school-age children of illegal aliens in thecountry. The CIS report points out that because per-student expendituresin the United States are about $10,000 a year, the costs of educating illegalalien children is roughly $15 billion annually. If the U.S.-born children arealso counted, the costs likely exceed $30 billion each year. 9The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe in 1982 that illegal alienstudents are entitled to enroll in U.S. public schools at taxpayer expense. Theruling was made immediately prior to the 1986 amnesty and it was believed atthe time that the illegal alien students would be amnestied as a result of thatprogram. Also, the number of these students was small enough at that timethat it would not create a significant hardship on the United States taxpayers.The Court noted in the decision that the “Congress could reverse thedecision if the illegal alien students prove to be a financial hardship to thetaxpayers and if the students who are legally residing in the United Statesbegin to have their own education negatively impacted by the presence ofthe illegal alien students. Both of these conditions apply today…”10"
http://www.legion.org/documents/legion/pdf/illegalimmigratio...
More on the plyler vs. doe decision
http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/taxpayer_expense.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/the_solution.htm
States have taken action against illegal immigration, due to the federal government not doing its job. According to this article, there are several approaches states can take
http://www.heritage.org/Research/immigration/hl1132.cfm
But back to Napolitano, as educated as he is, he should know the other side of the argument, as contained in the above links, but he doesn't even mention the other side of the argument(that the equal protection clause was misinterpreted), and makes it seem like it should stand as is. When Oreilly mentions putting a case before the supreme court to overturn plyler vs. doe, Napolitano says that would make the supreme court look like the boogeyman. The boogeyman? I think it would be great if plyler vs doe was overturned at the supreme court, especially since schools can prove financial burdens from illegal aliens now more than ever. I think Napolitano knows that as well, yet he still seems to think the ruling should stand. Sounds like the position the ACLU would take, that any ruling that favors illegal aliens, is a good ruling. Any ruling that rules against illegal aliens, is a bad ruling, that seems to be more or less where the ACLU stands, and its disturbing to think Napolitano might agree with them(though I hope he doesn't). I don't know for sure if he does or not, but I would like to hear more detail on his beliefs, where he is coming from, but from what I have seen, he is usually very quiet on the issue of illegal immigration, up until recently.
Also, Napolitano makes it seem like Joe Wilson said you lie to Obama, because of the equal protection clause, but I think, and I think Napolitano should have known, that what Joe Wilson was referring to, is there is no verification mechanism(thanks to democrats who voted it down)in the healthcare bill to keep illegal aliens from taking advantage of it. Read here for more
http://www.cis.org/feere/healthcare
Is this the reason for Fox's new agenda?
"[A con-con] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts…might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric…"
Well that pretty much describes most everyone in government and the media. It also explains why Fox News would lend a platform to libertarian views anti-thetical to its previous propaganda. Is this the mask being used to tap into a popular movement and steer it towards a constitutional convention in order to satisfy a completely different agenda? And is the Judge complicit in this or just an unwitting accomplice? Maybe he's come to his senses lately? Anyone know if he's still pushing this idea, or actively refuting it?
Well, certainly
alot of the bad stuff could be gotten rid of in a Con-Con.
However, alot or all of the good parts could be gotten rid of too.
So, it's a matter of who controls the Con-Con, and I'm not too optimistic that any good could come of it..
So, I'm opposed to it.
BUT, strictly speaking, it IS possible to get rid of the 16th and 14th amendments and alot of other crap too, if it could be controlled.
I don't know what context the judge puts his words in regarding that, so I can't comment on his motives.
But, it IS TRUE that bad things "could be removed", so it's all dependent on the context of what he said.
Good Article and These Items Say It All...
"Just imagine a Constitutional Convention in today’s climate and sans the statesmen like our founding fathers."
and...
"It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides…[and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts…might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric…"
Bottom line is that its not in our best interest to BLINDLY support anyone - even the judge, as he CAN humanly possibly be wrong on an issue. He is one of the best out there overall amongst Constitutionalists, but even though on this issue he's SEEMINGLY naive to the consequences of a con-con, I'm not condemning him outright.
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom." Patrick Henry
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom." Patrick Henry
The Judge has always been up
The Judge has always been up and up with support of a con-con but seems he's toned it down lately, not to say he's changed his mind. Perhaps the idea is, when it comes down to a choice of the worst you can imagine, it could be the absolute last peaceful attempt to reign in the gov.
.
Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/user/BeaReady/
http://www.ohiofreedom.com/subd/
Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.
"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor
LOL
What's a con con going to do when the whole things a fraud? Who do you think will control this con con? THEM. People we have not had rights since 1933. Really if you want to be truthful about it, the constitution doesn't grant you freedom of speech or the 2nd. Your creator did. Will this con con repeal the UCC and your all caps name that allows them to make you commerce, a commercial enity? Will it put us back under common law? Of course Napolitano is one of them. Everyone you see on tv, radio or has any signifigance, is either one of them, or has sold out to them. These people will lead you down a road that will go nowhere. That is how they work, meanwhile they are slipping the chains on your feet. You need to wake up, this is not a joke. The only way we can ever hope to break them is AWARENESS.
AMEN
2 AWARENESS! Your post is HIGHLY Significant! THANX!
I remember watching that
I remember watching that episode, where the judge talked about a con-con.
I found the youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGWomZDPZcs
I've heard the judge talk about how if we did have a con-con, it would need to be limited to the sole issue of income tax.
I don't think he's a fraud. I still like the judge.
Thanks for clarifying!
I love the fact that if anyone has info here , they share freely. I feel better about Judge Napolitano's statement concerning a Con-con now.
-I favor extending to Israel the same honest friendship that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers urged us to offer to all nations. ...This means I also favor discontinuing foreign aid to governments that are actual or potential enemies of Israel,--Ron Paul
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
I would support a con-con if...
it would repeal both the 14th and 16th amendment and everything these so called laws have been used against the people. How did we allow it in the first place? Corporate personhood, I mean come on!
So Andrew....
supports the idea of using a Constitutional Convention to eliminate the Income Tax and that is a problem? Give me a break. Is there any hope we'll ever stop cannibalizing the patriot movement? If we can't stop eating our own we're destined to spin on this wheel forever.
The Judge is one of the best voices of liberty that we have spreding the message, I urge all of you to stop and think before you cast stones. if this doesn't stop, pretty soon YOU will be the only person you don't want to attack.
I agree wholeheartedly with
I agree wholeheartedly with your assertions about The Judge. However, I don't think you were paying attention. ADD moment? A con-con is extremely dangerous. Especially in this political climate we face today.
They've already perverted concepts such as "general welfare" and "regulate" or "well-regulated" and managed to convince half the American people as well as its politicians and judges no less of their progressive interpretations and you want to give them a chance to set those definitions in stone?
Strict Constitutionality based on the anecdotal text the framers wrote that gives us the meaning and intent of the Constitution is the only defense we have!
We didn't need a con-con to repeal Prohibition.
Oh I'm paying attention alright
he was most likely inferring that be the single issue of the con-con, and not make it an open forum to be taken advantage of. Before you accuse someone of having an ADD moment, why don't you think about the issue a little more, what his intentions were, and how much of his language was taken out of context.
Because you CANNOT have a
Because you CANNOT have a con-con about a single issue. Period end of story.
This is the reason I was
This is the reason I was fussing over GB 's title box that reads ,
"NEW REPUBLIC"...
The Judge did say ,at the NE Regional that the Declaration of Independance is still binding & defensable LAW...The "D.of I., LAW" would naturally supercede the US Constitution as far as personal rights are concerned..This document DECLARES a persons Independance as a matter of record...This is defendable & ends the contriversy of jurisdiction.
You are responsible to enforce your own Declaration.of Independance, if the gov't will not do it for you.
Good people do Good deeds
Good people make it happen
the creation of an informed electorate...
..is seemingly impossible in a culture where constitutionally-minded people believe our prevailing wisdom is possible when reverence for the Creator is wholly unnecessary!
The public schools, our universities, and media stopped informing the electorate over a generation ago - and now this they are about to pounce!
It took this radical anti-war LEFT 50 years to tear down, destroy, and control our educational system and government; it will take this radical anti-war RIGHT movement a whole generation or more to repair the damage done and re-establish this nation's credibility.
This can only BEGIN to happen if we rail against political correctness with the same fervor and determination the LEFTIES railed against the same moral authoritative restraints that were imposed on them by the same government, academia, parents, clergy and media that steer our nation's ship today.
Remember when Ron Paul said you can't turn an aircraft carrier around on a dime!
www.michiganpep.org
http://elmhurst4ronpaul.com
http://trustronpaul.com
anti-war left?
haven't heard that one before, do you want to expand that thought a little more? Give examples?
There must be some
There must be some explanation for this.
In his defence, he did say that "Shephard Smith was a Freedom
Loving" at his speech at the Ron Paul Barbecue on April 15th.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N37YRqQgKwk&feature=related
Go to 4:40 if you dont want to see the whole
I dont know....may be I am not such a Shep smithy fan.
I'll poke the hornets nest
Madison was responding to those calls for a con-con 1 year after the ratification of the previous con-con. Now, considering his great input into the Constitution, why do you suppose the public method is included in the methodology to amend the Constitution?
Warren Burger vs. Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Who holds more credibility?
I really don't want a con-con - for the same reasons above... but to attempt to paint the Judge as having ulterior motives is pure bunk, IMO.
I'd love to see the con-con for repealing the 16th Amend... I'd also like to see it for a "no fiat currency" amendment... I'd love to see an amendment that abolished all government spending not EXPLICITLY expressed in the Constitution.
Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?
Oh wait a minute... I must be some evil, insidious globalist.
congress could easily
repeal the 16th without a con-con. if they won't do it now, why would you lay open the entire constitution to the same group of jackals?
"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul
congress?
They would not necessarily be seated as delegates to the con-con.
I can think of 8 to 10 folks from this State that I would rather have there.
I'm sure Nancy and Joe will call you for your choices
LOL
Explore Orthodox Christianity
very true
but we don't need to ask them for their choices, either!
they hold no sway in a con-con... they are in no position to say who goes and who does not.
Here's a day-dream of the next con-con.
There will be quite a few folks attending - making sure there's no hanky panky.
These folks that attend as observers will hold traitors accountable.
Those that are delegates better know that their lives will be on the line - for any further attempts to sell out the sovereign citizen to the marxo-corporo-fascists.
Folks will be required to defend the republic... with arms at the ready.
"Earth to erschiessen." "Come in erschiessen." "Dammit
we lost him"
He was one hell of a daydreamer. We'll miss him.
lol ;)
Explore Orthodox Christianity
yeah he was
lol
The show of force will be the last attempt at peaceful restraint of our government.
the use of force, unfortunately, may be the only way to actually restrain it.
note:
I'm not calling for violence... I do not support violence... I am threatening no one.
I'm just stating what I believe to be the only paths left.
Americans have been pushed too far - they are reaching the edge of the precipice... soon they will have only a choice between falling off of the cliff into utter slavery, or risking their lives fighting for the Liberty of their sons and daughters.
I think the judge is right.
Even if the con-con was a disaster people would wake up and realize the US has no credibility.
Free yourself.
Repent, for the reign of YaHUaH is near!
anyone know what people like Corsi and that other constitutional
lawyer (who's name escapes me) is it Fine?
what do they think of Napolitano
to be fair just because he agrees to attend - does not necessarily mean he will agree with what will transpire there
----------------------------------
"The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government". ~ Founding Fathers
----------------------------------
"The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government". ~ Founding Fathers
Bruce Fein
This guy comes at the power structure hard.
Ron Paul T-Shirts at www.BuffaloLiberty.com
$10 FREE Shipping
It shouldn't be to hard
to pick this apart.
Constitution for Newstates of America
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm
Check out the Responsibilities Section!