Privacy   |    Financial   |    Current Events   |    Self Defense   |    Miscellaneous   |    Letters To Editor   |    About Off The Grid News   |    Off The Grid Videos   |    Weekly Radio Show

Letters To The Editor

 Editor’s note: Off The Grid News received a flood of emails about this subject and will post more of them in the future. Below is a sample of responses.

Regarding: Would you support a constitutional convention (Convention of States) with the goal of limiting the federal government’s powers?

I would definitely support a constitutional convention.  Those who are worried about such a gathering “going rogue” shouldn’t worry.  It’s the state’s concerns that will determine the agenda and the proposed changes to the Constitution, not the members of the Federal government.  And it’s the several states that want the changes.  Finally, there aren’t enough states that want to move the Constitution in a “progressive” or “liberal” direction to have any significant effect.

William

**********

I would most assuredly approve a constitutional convention, IF their stated goals were their true and final goals. On the other hand, I wouldn’t want our Constitution up for grabs for the wrong reasons. I say to these people: Show me your proof.

Anonymous

**********

Of course I would support a Constitutional Convention. It’s constitutional, unlike so many other things happening today. I think we need more of this kind of action and less hand wringing and fear -mongering. Doing what we have the moral right to do is what created this country, so why should we now sit on our hands and do nothing? States have a right to convene, period.

Pat

**********

No, I would not support a Constitutional Convention. I feel that The Second Amendment, and other rights, would not survive. … In view of current efforts to muzzle freedom of The press by the FCC, the harassment of conservative groups by the IRS and endless regulations by bureaucracies like the ATF, I would greatly fear that any convention would be hijacked by the same people seeking to suppress our currents rights but, this time, the lack of those rights would be cast in stone!!

Gulliver

**********

I think the Convention of States is a potentially horrible and dangerous idea.

The constitution of the Unites States is as perfect as any constitution in the history of the world.  If we used the constitution we already have, our problems of federal government overreach would go away without having to start over with a new constitution and very possibly ending up with a constitution inferior to the one we already have.

If the Federal Government will not use the constitution we now have, what guarantee would we have that they honor and use another one instead?

If we repealed or abolished every law and government agency not authorized by the constitution we already have, we could reverse the problems of our present government over reach. We could abolish agencies that have no constitutional authority and return rightful authority to the states as was supposed to be guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.

Nullification is also a protection we already have and it is almost never invoked to limit the Federal Government power grabs. Unlawful orders and laws should not to be obeyed. Did we not learn anything from the Nuremberg trials about following unlawful orders?

We already have all the tools we need in our present, God-inspired constitution if we just use them.

Every politician has taken an oath to God and Country to defend our constitution. Maybe we need some politicians tried for treason and/or sedition to get the rest of the miscreants to honor their oaths of office.

Our present constitution isn’t the problem. Those elected to honor it are the problem and we need to hold them accountable!

Tom

 

**********

Might be a real can of worms. I think that if you open the door to a con-con, the powers that be just might take it over and thus do more harm than good. … We have enough direction with the Constitution as is. We just need to hold our representatives’ feet to the fire and get them to start looking out for our interests like they are supposed to, or get rid of them.

Anonymous

 

6 comments

  1. I think that a Con-Con/Article V convention is a bad idea. The people who are authorized to call such a convention are the same people who are seeking to destroy our country. Art. V says “The congress, whenever 2/3 of both houses shall deem it necessary…” Those people include Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, among others. There are too many “republicans” that go along with whatever the “democrats” say that I am afraid our Constitution is in danger of going the way of the dodo bird. I don’t trust anybody who is able to call a convention any further than I could throw them. I think this whole Con-Con/Article V convention is a bad idea in a long line of bad ideas.

    We just need to use the Constitution that we have. It was good enough for the Founding Fathers, and has survived 200+ years, it’s good enough now. We just need to make sure it stays that way.

  2. The Amendment process has served as the means for making changes since the adoption of the Constitution, without the call for a ConCon. Granted, there are a few Amendments which were not well thought out or can be said to have been ratified in a less than legal manner. The Amendment process is for making minor changes, a Convention is a call for major changes and that’s what we should be careful of.

    The question is: Who would be assigned to serve as delegates to the Convention? Today, there are few who could be called patriots in the sense that the Founders were. Today, I would fear too many Progressives would seek and gain those positions, greatly altering or even scrapping the original intent of the Founding Document, writing a new one that in no way would contain the Bill of Rights.

  3. People who fear a convention under Article V seem not to have read the Document closely.

    With regards to the convention of the states, as we are discussing it here, the Constitution says:

    The Congress, … on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which … shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, …

    This convention would do the same as Congress when it comes to proposing amendments. Each amendment would require ratification, the same as any of the 27 amendments already merged into the Document.

    The federal nature of the Constitution (largely undermined by the XVII and several subsequent amendments) makes elimination of the protections of the II, IV, and V unlikely. Because each state counts equally in the ratification process. Utah and Montana each have one vote, but so do Kalifornicatoria and New Jerksey. The “red” states outnumber the “blue”, and certainly amount to more than ¼ of the total, so no amendment that curtails freedom would be likely to reach the required 38 states needed to ratify. Any attempt at changing that number would fail, too, since the “small states” and other conservative/libertarian states would never agree to diluting their power like this.

    On the other hand, since a convention of the states could possibly result in returning to the original federal design of the central government (or at least getting closer thereunto), and reducing the power of president and of Congress, it seems the best way of approaching the suicide our once-great country is headed for as things stand. The other way (universally applied for amending the Constitution to this point) requires that ⅔ of the Senate and ⅔ of the House both agree on an amendment before submitting it to the states. Nothing good is likely to emerge from the Capitol as the political winds now blow in the District.

    Not only “nothing good”, but, as with the XVII, much bad comes from the “normal” amendment process, based on the same balance under the dome.

    Between the two processes, the Convention route seems least likely to harm and more so to deliver beneficial results.

  4. Against…let us enforce the laws we have and punish those who go against them. In CA, we have a governor who has signed six immigration laws into effect, this breaking federal law, but no one wants to hold him or his legislators accountable. You know something is very wrong when Mexican attorneys can practice law in the USA!

  5. With almost everything which appears to be developing throughout this specific area, all your perspectives tend to be somewhat exciting. Nonetheless, I appologize, but I do not subscribe to your entire strategy, all be it exhilarating none the less. It looks to us that your comments are not totally justified and in actuality you are yourself not even entirely confident of the point. In any case I did take pleasure in reading through it.

  6. I am so grateful for your post.Really thank you! Want more.

Leave a Reply

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

*

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!