Oklahoma continues to lead the nation in Constitution-oriented legislation at the state level. The Tenth Amendment resolution introduced in the Oklahoma legislature last year by Rep. Charles Key has led to at least 30 states introducing similar Tenth Amendment resolutions so far this year. These amendments call for the restoration of the balance of power between state and federal governments in accordance with the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. At least 12 states, including Oklahoma, have already passed a Tenth Amendment resolution in one or both houses.

Now Oklahoma has become the first state this year to rescind all of its previous applications to Congress to call a constitutional convention (con con). On May 12, Governor Brad Henry signed SJR 11, “A Joint Resolution rescinding applications by the Legislature to the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention.” This followed passage of SJR 11 by the Senate 45-0 on March 4; passage of an amended version by the House 90-6 on April 22; and finally, Senate passage of the House version by 41-2 on May 5.

Back in the mid 1970s a con-con movement sprang up to call a modern-day constitutional convention for the stated purpose of drafting a balanced-budget amendment (BBA) to the Constitution, and by 1983 it had led to 32 state legislatures asking Congress to call a convention as provided by Article V of the Constitution. However, as awareness spread that a constitutional convention cannot be limited to drafting a specific amendment — and in fact could draft any number of amendments including an entirely new constitution — the con-con movement sputtered and stalled.

Here's a video, "Beware of Article V," which shows just how risky a constitutional convention would be for our Constitution:

The John Birch Society (JBS) was instrumental in slowing and then reversing the momentum behind the drive for a balanced-budget con con. With 32 states out of the necessary 34 (two-thirds) already on record with con-con calls, our nation was only two more states away from a very risky con-con. However, since JBS members and allies got involved in this fight in the 1980s, not one more state has approved a balanced budget amendment con-con. What's more, these grassroots constitutionalists worked closely with their state legislators in many states which has led to 11 states rescinding (withdrawing) their BBA con-con calls as well as all of their other con-con calls for other purposes. So, now instead of 32 states on record with BBA constitutional convention calls, there are now only 21 states with "live" (unrescinded) BBA calls.

Nonetheless, a new constitutional convention threat has arisen this year. Hundreds of thousands of newly awakened Americans are being mobilized by the Tea Party Movement and the Glenn Beck 9-12 Project to form a grassroots movement in favor of some very good causes, such as lower taxes, less spending, and a return to a more limited federal government. In recent weeks the national leaders of both movements have been heavily promoting Professor Randy Barnett and his project of proposing 10 amendments to the Constitution by applying pressure on all 50 state legislatures to call for a con-con. Both Tea Party leader Michael Patrick Leahy and 9-12 Project leader Glenn Beck have featured Prof. Barnett and his project on their TV shows. If the leadership of these new movements persist in promoting this constitutional convention strategy, and if the local organizers and members adopt the con-con project, then we’re in for one of the biggest threats to our Constitution that we’ve ever had.

That’s why Oklahoma’s rescission of all of its previous constitutional convention calls this year, and by such lop-sided votes, provides such a hopeful precedent for the continued rejection of any new constitutional convention proposals by all state legislatures.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (23)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Bob said:

	Con-Con If a Con Con were called by Congress, could you image the field day the Nancy Pelosis and Harry Reids would have in potentially selecting the delgates. It would be hijacked by the devout forces of Statism and sycopaths working on behalf of President Mussobama.
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 14, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

Thomas Paine said:

	Way to go Oklahoma! I met with Gov Strickland of Ohio this week I had the chance to speak to Gov Strickland of Ohio this week, and asked what he thought about the 10th amendment movement by states such as Oklahoma. He said that someone has just introduced it in the Ohio house. Let's stay on the offense. Way to go OK you are the greatest!
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 14, 2009
Votes: +4

Bill Walker said:

The Oklahoma Action Has No Effect The action of the state legislature of Oklahoma has no practical effect. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that no state legislature can change the terms of Article V of the Constitution. There is no provision for rescission of applications in Article V. Beyond this, long before Oklahoma moved to rescind its applications, the two-thirds mark required by Article V had been reached. Public record shows all 50 states have applied over 750 times for a convention call. Congress has refused to obey the Constitution and issue such a call. Before you buy into the BS the JBS is sending out, please go to www.foavc.org and read the texts of the applications and learn the truth about an Article V Convention. It is not the threat the JBS leads you to believe and as shown by the above statement about the number of applications, it should be obvious to all that JBS lies even about the number of applications. One final point. How does the state of Oklahoma expect the federal government to take their 10th Amendment resolution condemning the federal government for vetoing the Constitution seriously when that same state legislature then urges the federal government veto the Constitution by not obeying Article V when its terms have been satisfied?

report abuse vote down vote up

May 14, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Byron DeLear said:

The Convention Contends with a Runaway Federal Government To subscribe to the notion that an amendatory convention -- as outlined in Article V – would make for a runaway convention hijacked by all sorts of quackery, is ignoring the built in protection designed by the Framers to avert any such radicalism; over-politicizing any aspect of any amendment essentially renders the idea moot, a non-starter. Simply put, any proposed amendments emanating from an Article V Convention would be required to go to the States to be considered for ratification. 75% of the States must ratify in order for any proposal to become law. If anyone has had any experience in politics, they know that a three-fourths voting threshold is very difficult to achieve. This three-fourths threshold constraint in Article V is the Founders’ and Framers’ firewall preventing extremists from hacking the Constitution. This then leaves the question, what good could an Article V Convention achieve, if it is designed to be so extraordinarily centrist in its political disposition?

report abuse vote down vote up

May 15, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

Byron DeLear said:

Proof's in the Pudding Well, there’s where the proof's in the pudding. An Article V Convention, as a fundamental check-and-balance designed into our Constitution, does not play in the Right/Left political paradigm, but rather, it deals with the Top/Down nature of the Federal Government powers above, as contrasted with the Several States below. To wit, there are many aspects of Washington DC that have grown beyond their means, lobbyist power, politicians running up deficits in an out-of-control fashion – these faults are many and too numerous to mention. But the John Birch Society suggesting that the convention will be a runaway, trashing the Constitution, shows this organization just resorting to the same old scorched earth tired rhetoric they’ve been known for in the past. The Convention clause that’s already been triggered does indeed contend with a runaway – although it is not a runaway convention – it’s the runaway train of Federal Government penetrating into an unknown realm of limitless debt and corruption never seen before; a runaway Washington sans ability to self-correct or exhibit any sense of moderation or self-control. Don’t let the naysayers deny your right as an American citizen to see this Article V Convention. It’s time for our nation to put the brakes on, and Article V is the push pedal. Don’t believe it? Check it out for yourself: www.foavc.org

report abuse vote down vote up

May 15, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

William D. Hodges said:

... Question addressed to Bill Walker and Byron DeLear: In all sincerity, I find it counter-productive to belittle one or any number of organizations whose sole intent is to strengthen The People over government in our common pursuit of ensured individual personal freedom and liberty. Therefore, instead of berating the John Birch Society for its policy position, I request that you take the time to oversimplify the beneficial qualities of an "Article V Convention" and how it can best be used to curb a growing and out of control central government. Are you willing to do so, in order that those who seek to share debate will fully understand and respect your position? Thank you.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 18, 2009
Votes: +5

Byron DeLear said:

Dear William D. Hodges... Thanks for the comment. It is frustrating to see an organization work against the important protections designed into the Constitution by our Founders and Framers (Article V Convention) under the rubric of 'defending the Constitution'. This is a non-sequitur, but at its worst, betrays a more nefarious agenda. Of course, it could also just be a big misunderstanding. Let’s assume the best here, and attempt to shine a little light on the issue so as to relieve the burden of a misinterpretation of the convention clause of Article V. William, you made the request, “…that you take the time to oversimplify the beneficial qualities of an "Article V Convention" and how it can best be used to curb a growing and out of control central government.” Better the words of one of the Framers, than I, to elucidate the *precise reason* for the existence of the convention clause of Article V, and in so doing, provide a little Constitutional contextual precedent, as well as an explanation for the exact grounds for which this protection exists, as you put it, “…to curb a growing and out of control central government.”

report abuse vote down vote up

May 18, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Byron DeLear said:

Federalist 85 is best original explanation out there... Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 85, the last essay on ‘selling’ the Constitution to the several states for ratification said, "In opposition to the probability of subsequent amendments, it has been urged that the persons delegated to the administration of the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority of which they were once possessed… …It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof." The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress "shall call a convention." Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”

report abuse vote down vote up

May 18, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

William D. Hodges said:

Excellent response... Byron, Do you believe further safeguards could be put into place, ensuring protection of The People from undue influence by conflicting interests placed upon legislative bodies? If so, what might you propose? If not, why do you believe such additional safeguards might be unnecessary? It has become evident that lobbyists, especially foreign interests, have had a significant impact upon our governing bodies, disregarding the desired interests of The People. How might this be stopped given our current political climate? Also, how might the judicial bench or executive legislation be successfully stopped when The People's interests have been deemed inappropriate or inconvenient by special interests and an overzealous (read: corrupt) government? It appears, especially over the past several decades, there has been a blatant disregard in exercise toward constitutional procedure and authority. Hence, the disenfranchised constituency, its distrust in government and legislative bodies. How might we (The People) ensure that the intent of our Founding Fathers remains secured? If I may constructively admonish your remarks, to accuse the John Birch Society of a nefarious agenda might be considered a libelous charge. So, I ask you, what might that nefarious agenda be? Or, did you make your statement out of frustration in regard to your position of debate? Whilst I cannot speak on behalf of the John Birch Society, I do hold the organization in very high regard and disagree with any premise of evil intent regarding its policy positions. It is never my goal to be discourteous, I merely wish to exchange in genuine political debate. I understand both sides of this issue supports a valid argument. My interest is in hoping both sides may find a common understanding in the best interest of all. Sincerely, William

report abuse vote down vote up

May 18, 2009
Votes: +4

Byron DeLear said:

Thanks... William, I whole heartedly agree on your assertion that our representative democracy has been structurally compromised by opportunists from many corners infesting Washington. Here is my position paper on the economy from my US House run that illuminates some of these perspectives tha we commonly share. Written in '07, it foreshadowed alot of the catastrophe: http://www.delearforcongress.org/economy.html Also, here is a long thread which is a good read on some of the most salient issues regarding the convention call, why it has been triggered already, why Congress as political actors refuse to instigate an action that would possibly dillute their authority and why we need this Article V Convetion (AVC) more now than ever. You asked what benefits an AVC could provide to curb the bloated and reckless behavior of the central government? Prefacing the fact that organizationaly, FOAVC (foavc.org) takes a concerted nonpartisan tack and does not advocate for specific amendments, a few ideas worth exploring in my mind, that a recalcitrant Congress is unwilling or unable to act upon, would be: 1. Federal Balanced Budget Amendment 2. Significant Campaign Financing Reform 3. Secure the Vote http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006553.html#281677

report abuse vote down vote up

May 19, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

William D. Hodges said:

I agree, except for... Byron, I believe I understood your intented meaning but will very respectfully correct the opening sentence of your last response [for the express purpose of all who may be following along] when refering to the United States of America as a "representative democracy", it is not. The United States of America is a Representative Republic, clearly stated as such throughout its legal documentation. Whilst many erroneously refer to the United States as a democracy, nowhere within its historical or legal documentation is the U.S. deemed as such. The word "democracy" does not appear anywhere in the Declaration of Independence nor within the United States Constitution. Returning to the primary focus of debate, I would like to ask your opinion over the issue of ensuring protections through the utilization of a Constitutional Convention. I include the following links as the example: *http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html#mod=rss_opinion_main *http://volokh.com/posts/1241451864.shtml *http://michaelpatrickleahy.blogspot.com/2009/04/bill-of-federalism-10-amendments-to-be.html In summation, what is your opinion of Professor Randy Barnett's proposal for The Bill of Federalism? Do you believe Professor Barnett is on the correct path to safeguard the unalienable rights and protections guaranteed to The People? Ultimately, do you not agree Professor Barnett's approach is proper and intended protocol for the Constitutional Convention? Thank you, William

report abuse vote down vote up

May 19, 2009
Votes: +4

Byron DeLear said:

First of all... ... to quibble on terminology. To paraphrase from wiki, William R. Everdell's "The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans." University of Chicago Press, 2000. pg. 3 "in the United States republic refers to representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy." This is the usage I am accustomed to: Representative democracy as opposed to either direct democracy or varying expressions of autocracy; monarchies, oligarchies, etc. If you read the definitions of representative democracy it roughly correlates to our experience here in the US, more or less. I do not prefer the usage of 'representative republic' over 'representative democracy' or vice versa. By my lights, in substance they are interchangeable. On a different quibble, when referring to Article V, many find the usage of the term "Constitutional Convention" to be less accurate than the terms "amendatory convention" (a version of which Randy Barnett used in his op-ed piece in WSJ) or, more specifically, "Article V Convention" (AVC). The pertinent contrasting clarification being, the term "Constitutional Convention" possibly suggests authoring a new Constitution -- like Philadelphia. Whereas, the process in AV, is a body that generates a roster of ideas that go to the States for ratification; an amendatory convention, or an Article V Convention.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 19, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Byron DeLear said:

I think Randy's got some great ideas which I support. I think Randy's got some great ideas which I support. However, he has stated that "the powers that be" will not allow a convention to take place, which makes his convention call figurative, as only an empty means to an end; the traditional vote up or down on his 10 Federalism Amendments in the US House and Senate. We, at FOAVC, depart from Prof. Barnett on this issue. We believe that as the record clearly shows, the peremptory call for an AVC has already been triggered numerous times, and that Congress is dragging their feet, because the AVC is a real threat to top-down expressions of control, which, sadly, we see evidence of on many levels in Washington today; a reckless and many times unaccountable political culture whose ill-effects have been compounding for decades, suffering both parties, unable to self-restrain or self-correct. This is the purpose of an AVC, to bring the Fed's feet to the ground, and infuse a little good ol' fashioned responsibility and conscientiousness to the real long term impact upon the people and our country for what they do. The recent blank checks issued to Wall Street banks make my blood boil, and shows the political machinery in Washington as a subservient tool to multi-nationals and unable to perform their duty to regulate commerce with any degree of responsible efficacy or independent oversight. Blinders and boundaries must be placed on and around the untamed actions of Congress, to neutralize the collusion between Wall Street and Washington – an intervention must be staged, and in our opinion, unlike Prof. Barnett, amplifying the immediate availability of this check-and-balance designed into our Constitution, for these precise circumstances we find our nation in today, could in reality, materialize the nation’s first Article V Convention. And as the sun rises on a new day for America and her representative republic, the world might just become a better place.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 19, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

William D. Hodges said:

Byron, again, I agree to a great extent. However, ... Unfortunately, as you stated, Professor Barnett's proposal is figurative...unless, enough support can be garnished to guarantee its passage. Congress has grown indifferent toward its constituencies, perverse and corrupted due to money and power of special interests. Hence, the dire need for a grassroots movement to lead The People into a positive direction, ensuring the security of our Constitution and all individual rights therein. Without such action, The People are coming detrimentally close to losing said rights. We currently face today's problems of an increasingly self-empowering government and its unlawful disregard of Constitutional procedure. What are we left with if not a question of how to redress such issues? Clearly, a call for accountability must be met. My argument is that we [The People] must enforce and strengthen the checks and balances over those in office, holding our representatives accountable. If not via the adoption of Professor Barnett's proposal for the Bill of Federalism, then what solutions have we? We currently have ethics laws which were designed to separate conflict of special interests from the process of legislation, yet such laws are held in contempt. The same applies to the checks and balances within the Constitutional Convention. Why? Simple. The wolves are running the hatchery. It has reached a pivotal point where the government has unlawfully empowered itself almost into becoming a fascist state over The People instead of a representative body of The People. A case in point would be the over-stepping of government powers throughout bi-partisan legislation, i.e., the PA and HSA, proposed Second Amendment restriction/abolition, Kelo Act, SEA Treaty, SALT Treaty, NAFTA, CAFTA, World Court, etc., et al. Daily, we bear witness to the government's gross abuses of power. We must find an option to counter that effect, if it is our intent to remain a free nation.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 19, 2009
Votes: +4

William D. Hodges said:

To quibble or not to quibble over verbiage, that is the question... I prefer to reference the nation's founding documents: The Constitution of the United States of America and The Declaration of Independence, as well as the authors of both. I believe both legal documents are much more clear in their purpose and language than Mr. William R. Everdell's individual interpretation of the Founder's intent, which Mr. Everdell published nearly two and a quarter centuries after the fact. To quote James Madison, the Father of the Constitution of the United States of America, "Democracy is the most vile form of government...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." To quote Thomas Jefferson, the Father of the United States Declaration Independence, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Considering the fact that both documents are devoid mentioning the word "democracy" and knowing the concise opinion of how the authors of both legal documents viewed "democracy", the argument is baseless. Clearly, Mr. Everdell is incorrect. The argument reminds me of a quip my father often used when I was a child, "You can paint over the stripes of a zebra but that will not make it a Thoroughbred." In regard to "Constitutional Convention" or "amendatory convention", I'll not quibble as both have distinctive meanings and can become legally argumentative when addressing the original topic of discussion. Regardless, on that particular issue, we both unequivocally understood the platform from which we exchanged dialogue. Now, I will return to the topic of debate...

report abuse vote down vote up

May 19, 2009
Votes: +4

Byron DeLear said:

When critisizing the term 'democracy', the Founders... ...were speaking to Athenian democracy, which in their view gave to much power to an ill-informed public and was potentially capricious; dangerous. Historically speaking, the term democracy precedes our Revolution, and sometimes is used to describe a series of political reforms that increasingly gave more power and self-determination to the people, as opposed to authoritarian feudal systems; monarchies. The term republicanism refers to this positioning away from monarchies as well. I like to use both. What I read, when I research theory and systems in political science, the term democracy embodies certain democratic principles, such as elections, voting, human rights and the revolutionary idea of self-determination. In our American system, the People's power is drawn from an infinite well, and that power is only 'loaned' to government. America is a Republic, and common usage reflects some overlap between the terms 'republic' and 'democracy' in the political characteristics they describe. But I respect your strict adherence to the term republic; republicanism. Interchangeably use the terms to better communicate to the unique needs of different audiences, after all, communication is a two-way street.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 20, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Bill Walker said:

Why a convention Two comments. First as to the JBS. It is not wrong to belittle an organization that lies in order to get its points across. If watch your response videos you'll see that we show they have lied about the facts. Period. Now if what they say is true, then why do they have to lie at all? Second as to the second point. What are the benefits of a convention? A long answer could take pages. The short: 1. it re-establishes the principle that the government must obey the Constitution and re-establishes the proper balanced of power between the states and the federal government. 2. It permits review of the federal power and based on the applications already submitted, sharply curtails this power on several important fronts including: taxes, judicial rulings, term limits, federal mandates, federal control of the states and most importantly, increases in individual liberties through additional citizen rights such as initiative and referendum and recall at the federal level. 3. It allows the citizens again to feel they have a real voice in the system in that they will elect the delegates to this convention and, unlike 1787, will be involved in every aspect of it transaction. 4. It presents us the opportunity to take stock of our nation and in a legal and proper manner determine the direction of that nation by passage of amendments that are obviously sorely needed. Length prevents a more detailed response

report abuse vote down vote up

May 20, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

William D. Hodges said:

Byron, since we are mincing over the words "republic" and "democracy"... In the spirit of friendly but passionate debate: History has made the intent of our nation's Founding Fathers quite clear and I seriously doubt, based upon their numerous speeches and statements, those founders were confused in their political ideology. If you can point out anywhere the nation's founding legal documents [1. Declaration of Independence; 2. Constitution of the United States of America [or any amendment therein]; 3. Bill of Rights] utilizes the word "democracy" in describing our nation or its principles, I will accredit your argument. You have refered to instances where the word "democracy" has been, 'used to describe a series of political reforms that increasingly gave more power and self-determination to the people, as opposed to authoritarian feudal systems; monarchies.' I sincerely request that you provide specific references as to which legislative reforms you mention. No such legal reforms exist that I am aware. In fact, I now infuse the Federalist Papers for the express purpose to further my point. The fact remains, the word "democracy" was never used by our Founding Fathers because the United States is not a democracy and was never intended to be, in any form. Our Founding Fathers recognized that democracies have inherent weaknesses and inevitably fail. Our nation can only correctly be described as a representative republic with a few democratic institutions, but a democracy the nation is not. There is an intrinsic difference between a representative democracy and a representative republic. The distinction between both subjects is covered throughout basic civics. An attempt to liken the ideologies between "representative republic" and "democratic republic" would be similar to liken "capitalism" to "socialism" [regardless, the degrees of either]. Unequivocally, there is an intrinsic difference between the two distinct ideologies. ...again returning to the original topic...

report abuse vote down vote up

May 20, 2009
Votes: +4

William D. Hodges said:

Bill Walker, with all due respect... Addressing: 'First as to the JBS. It is not wrong to belittle an organization that lies in order to get its points across. If watch your response videos you'll see that we show they have lied about the facts. Period. Now if what they say is true, then why do they have to lie at all?' Do you have any irrefutable evidence? The statement can be construed as "libel". Unless there is evidence to prove, '...[JBS] lies in order to get its points across' the remark can name you in a civil action. Also, I have not been linked to any 'response videos' which state the John Birch Society has lied. Obviously, the Constitutional Convention is not adequate, to date, in living up to the expectations you have mentioned. If it did, this debate would not be taking place. It is for this reason I support Professor Randy Barnett's idea of including the Bill of Federalism. If not Professor Barnett's Bill of Federalism, then anything similar in nature which will enforce protection from government. My argument is: if not abolish the procedure afforded by a Constitutional Convention, then why not strengthen it in favour of The People? Just as you, I believe we, The People, deserve to have protections against those who have empowered themselves through excessive government to rule over The People rather than represent The People. The current administration as well as the last administration have exercised a policy of political empowerment, disregarding Constitutional procedure. Obviously, a Constitutional Convention itself is not a saviour for the Constitution of the United States of America.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 20, 2009
Votes: +4

William D. Hodges said:

Apparently, JBS is correct... The FOAVC advocates appear incapable of clearly defining their position, nor did they offer any proposed solutions. Either the FOAVC advocates are hiding their heads in the proverbial sand or they fail to fully grasp the issue. Thus far, the only debate offered by the advocates of the FOAVC has been a barrage of libelous attacks directed toward the John Birch Society, armed with a few parroted talking points from the FOAVC website. To say that I am disappointed would be an understatement. I expected some degree of soluble ideas, especially from an individual who has expressed their personal desire to win Missouri's 2nd District Congressional seat. Alas, as with most politicians, the only offering happened to be a few parroted talking points buried beneath words stolen out of the depths of a newly purchased thesaurus dictionary. In the end, the individual merely attempted to erroneously redefine the political ideology of the nation's Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, any opportunity to express their political knowledge regarding the Constitutional Convention or its obvious and admitted inadequacies proved to be imtermediate at best. I hope the next time they intend to debate, they will remember to bring some degree of substance to the table of intellectual ideas and solutions. Until then, the issue remains to be discussed. After three days of silence from the FOAVC corner, it appears their position has nothing to offer in summation.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 23, 2009
Votes: +4

Teri M. Owens said:

	FOAVC uses a common tactic of accusing the opposition of what they are doing... See my article - "Can we trust friends of the Article V Convention?" in the blog section of the website: http://www.stoptheconcon.com
	report abuse vote down vote up

June 02, 2009 | url
Votes: +2

mike said:

SEc 10 b I totally disagree with all this paranoia. Look at Sec 10b of the 1973 Federal convention Act 1973. It states: No convention called under this Act may propose any amendments of a nature different from that stated in the concurrent resolution calling the convention. So if term limits is the issue you can't open up the bill of rights or the abolition of the constitution. The states have the right to call up whatever they wish. If that were true the Congress can also decide on its own to call up any amendment. NOTE: ALL AMENDMENTS MUST BE APPROVED BY 38 STATES NO MATTER WHO INITIATES THE AMENDMENT AND THE APPROVAL IS DONE ACCORDING TO STATE LAW. SO IF A VOTE IS REQUIRED OR A CONVENTION IN THAT STATE TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT- THEN THAT IS THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED.

report abuse vote down vote up

June 02, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

William D. Hodges said:

As I previously stated... Reiterating the key point made within my last statement: The FOAVC advocates appear incapable of clearly defining their position, nor did they offer any proposed solutions. It appears the argument, from the FOAVC perspective, seems to be nothing more than "just because". Advocates for the FOAVC have yet to clearly define their philosophical ideology. Instead, they prefer to reference selling points from their website. Whilst there may be a legitimate argument to be made on behalf of a Constitutional Convention (given a protocol of ensured checks and balances, i.e., Professor Barnett's proposal) the FOAVC has failed miserably in offering such a position for debate (especially when key advocates denounced a protocal of any checks and balances). If one notices nothing else about political practice, they will always note when an organization advocates an agenda but fails to arguably detail that agenda, that organization is attempting to cover up an unmistakable stench within the woodpile. I am not going to partake in an unethical attack upon the FOAVC, unlike some of its members who made libelous claims against the John Birch Society, but I will point out the fact that the FOAVC is not being completely forthcoming in regard to its agenda. Since this fact is quite obvious, I am left to ponder if the FOAVC's lack for detail is intentional or merely inexcusable.

report abuse vote down vote up

June 05, 2009
Votes: +2