Slide 9
“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”— Plato.
THE CLAIM: 'There is no such thing as a limited convention’ is Fiction and Fear.
This claim is false and another twist on their Holy Grail, ‘the Con-Con’, that because the 1787 Philadelphia Convention ran away, there is no way to know what would happen if another was ever called.
Straight out of Alinsky’s playbook, we must recognize this for what it is: a desperate attempt to scare people into inaction. The best course of action is to counter the claim with truth and remain steadfast in our resolve to return this country to its founding principles.
The historical record and case law are crystal clear:
- The 42 prior interstate conventions demonstrate the appointed commissioners (subject to their state’s instructions) and limited to the “call” on what can be discussed have complete control. To wit:
- the ability to set its hours,
- judge credentials of delegate
- determine its agenda and order of business
- elect its officers and assign committees, and
- establish procedural rules
- The case law is irrefutable:
- Smith v. Union Bank of Georgetown, 30 U.S. 518 (1831) - An Article V Convention is a “convention of the States” and is therefore endowed with the powers of an interstate convention.
- Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855) - Amendatory conventions may be single issue. The States and/or the people cannot dictate the amendments. A state application is valid solely because it was made by the state
- In Re Opinion of the Justices, 204 N.C. 306, 172 S.E. 474 (1933) - An Article V Convention may be limited in purpose to a single issue or to a fixed set of issues
- Donovan v. Priest, 931 S.W. 2d 119 (Ark. 1996) - Ruling requires that any assembly be more than a rubber stamp for pre-written amendment. The assembly must engage in “intellectual debate, deliberation, or consideration” of any proposed amendment. Applies to an Article V Convention.
Prof. Robert Natleson is considered by his peers to be the nation’s leading expert on amending the Constitution. By all means, take the time to investigate Prof. Natelson’s credentials and compare them to the qualifications of all those speaking against using this method to limit government. Decide for yourself who has genuine expertise and credibility.
