Only Two States Away From America' s Destruction
THE ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT A CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, BUT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
I would think by now some people would be smart enough to know that a Con Con will open up the Constitution to all kinds of changes, many will not be for the good.
While on the surface it may sound like a great way to bypass Congress to make changes to the Constitution...it's not.
Remember what Ron Paul says about unintended consequences.
Read the following to find out how close they are to destroying all our remaining freedoms.
Some states have realized their error in voting for this and are trying to back out, but the Constitution has no provision for receding vote...once you're in it appears you're in.
The only way to stop it is to make sure no more states vote for it.
If you want to save what's left of America...Stop the Con Con Now!!!
Posted: December 12, 2008
12:25 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."
"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Center.
"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.
The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.
Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.
"The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention," the alert said. "If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution."
DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled.
State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe.
According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=8...
This is about a Constitutional Convention not a Continental
Congress.
Here is another source.
Ohio Legislature Pushes For Constitutional Convention
By John P. Connolly, The Bulletin
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Ohio state legislature is considering adding its vote to other states requesting a constitutional convention, sending grassroots organizations scrambling to block the vote.
The push for a convention is being made by Republican politicians who want to see a constitutional requirement for balancing the federal budget added to the highest law of the land. Ohio’s H. J. R. No. 8, which would add Ohio to the list of states requesting a Convention, was designed for passage before Republicans lose their current control of the state legislature in January.
A constitutional convention has not been called in the United States since the late 18th Century. Once two thirds of the states have requested such a convention, Congress would appoint members to the convention. If Ohio passes H. J. R. No. 8, only one more state would be required to call the convention.
Among those states that have applied for a constitutional convention are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.
The American Policy Center (APC), a grassroots organization dedicated to limited government, has organized opposition to the move, saying that the timing for such a convention would open the Constitution up to radical alterations.
“The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention,” said Tom DeWeese, who runs the APC. “If Ohio votes to call a [convention], for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction.”
The original vote for H. J. R. No. 8 was canceled, and no vote has been taken on it yet. A similar state Senate bill is also awaiting a vote.
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2008/12/16/news/nation/doc494...
A Continental Congress is not a Constitutional Convention
They have the same nickname. One is very dangerous (see your article that we all dealt with a few months ago) one is very good. You have to read past the first words and understand the vast difference between the two.
GOD I hope nobody replys to your thread with "wow, I had no idea."
Explore Orthodox Christianity
This is not about
a Continental Congress, it is about a Constitutional Convention.
Did you read the article? This has been under the radar since 1980.
"DeWeese said the Constitutional Convention effort was begun in the 1980s by those who wanted to rein in government with an amendment requiring a balanced budget for the federal agencies. "