Over the last few years, specifically under the Obama years, there was a lot of talk about a Con-Con, i.e. Constitutional Convention. Our Founders put this into our Constitution to give us the right to reset our Constitution if the government has taken things too far away from the intentions of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. I don’t doubt that this has happened but the problem with a Con Con is when it calls out the existing form of government and comes to a complete halt; and whatever form of government comes out of the Con Con is what we will have. I don’t think we should go into a Con Con unless we know definitively what form of government we’ll end up with. There is nothing wrong with what the Founders gave us IF we would simply follow it. I don’t see a guarantee that we will come out with a government that is as good as the one the Founders gave us.
Some have said that the most conservative Justice on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, was okay with a Con Con but it was only the provision for the Amendment Process that he would call for one.
On April 17, 2014, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared on an episode of The Kalb Report, a one-on-one panel discussion television and radio program jointly produced by the National Press Club Journalism Institute, George Washington University, and the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. The subject of the program was “A Conversation About the First Amendment.”
During the program, host Marvin Kalb asked a question of Seth Dawson from the office of Congressman Denny Heck (D-Wash.) regarding the recent suggestion by Justice John Paul Stevens of a constitutional amendment to modify the Second Amendment. The question was, “If you could amend the Constitution in one way, what would it be, and why?” The first to answer was Scalia, who replied:
I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that? But, if there were a targeted amendment that were adopted by the states, I think the only provision I would amend is the Amendment Provision. I figured out, at one time, what percentage of the populace could prevent an Amendment to the Constitution. And, if you take a bare majority in the smallest states by population, I think something less than two percent of the people can prevent a Constitutional Amendment. It ought to be hard, but it shouldn’t be that hard. 1
Further on in this debate, he solidified his opinion concerning a Con Con:
Scalia acknowledged the difficulty of amending the Constitution, and speaking in the context of amendments, he clearly warned against the notion of a convention, which is the second, or alternative, method for amending the Constitution under Article V.
During the question-and-answer session following a speech Scalia gave to the Federalist Society in Morristown, New Jersey, on May 8, 2015, he was asked whether a constitutional convention would be in the nation’s interest.
“A constitutional convention is a horrible idea,” Scalia replied. “This is not a good century to write a constitution.” 2
We have operated under the Constitution for 231 years, the most successful government document in the history of the world, so it doesn’t need to be changed, it needs to be followed.
The encroachment of the federal government into the States rights and the rights of the American people has been done a little at a time as so not to be noticed by the people. Our rights have been slowly eroded by those in power that want America to be part of the New World Order. This includes virtually all of the Democrat Party and the RINO’s like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, Jeff Flake just to name a few. These Republicans also include George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. This should have become very evident in the last general election when none of the former Republican presidents voted for the Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump. They vigorously opposed him and still do. We can also see why they oppose him because he is exposing the massive corruption that is deeply embedded in the federal government from the so-called justice department, the FBI and even the IRS. Its ugly tentacles reach deep and they don’t want to let go.
There are other factors that we need to address as well. Our original Constitution along with its amendments are not the same as we have today. Today’s 13th Amendment refers to slavery but in a copy of the Constitution that was printed in 1825 referred to the prohibition of lawyers from serving in government. In 1983 David Dodge and Tom Dunn were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records in a Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. They uncovered probably the most explosive evidence ever uncovered in our history. They uncovered the United States Constitution printed in 1825, which was to prohibit lawyers from serving in Government.
Extensive research since then has uncovered the following:
1.) The unlawful removal of a ratified 13th Amendment from the US Constitution.
2.) The Amendment had been printed in at least 18 separate publications by 11 different states and territories from 1819 to 1868.
3.) The Amendment was secretly removed from documents by a group of lawyers and bankers. In its place was entered the slave Amendment, which was the 14th amendment, which was changed to the 13th Amendment. All of this occurred during the turmoil of the civil war.
4.) Since the Amendment was not lawfully repealed, it is still the law of the land.
5.) Colorado printed the correct 13th Amendment in 1668. [This probably should read 1868.] 3
What we are experiencing is a complete side-stepping of our Constitution by people who are looking to keep the American people in ignorance concerning our rights. That is one reason why we no longer teach our Constitution in our schools. I grew up in the ’50s and ’60s graduating in 1968 and they were still teaching the Constitution then but by the time my kids started school, it was no longer part of the curriculum. For America to stay free, we must keep our heritage alive and that can only be done by keeping it in front of our eyes and the eyes of our youth. Noah Webster stated: “Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country.”
We have failed to do this and in doing so we have failed our children.
- Roger Anghis, Defining America’s Exceptionalism, pp. 172, (Westbow Press, 2012)
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.