SJR1 by Senator Rapert will lead to a Con-Con
Posted On: February 21, 2012
BEWARE: SJR1 by Senator Rapert
Is a Call for a Constitutional Convention
Barry Goldwater said: “[I am] totally opposed [to a Constitutional Convention]…We may wind up with a Constitution so far different from that we have lived under for two hundred years that the Republic might not be able to continue.”
SJR1 will lead us to Sustainable Development. Why would we come to this conclusion?
Because of the Policom Corporation. Look at their clientele. These are sustainable developers. Are the Municipal Leagues, Bankers Associations and Economic Development Councils U. N. Agenda 21? Yes! And the Republicans are leading the way for this Con-Con to be passed, backed by the evil Policom Corporation.
SJR1, sponsored by Senator Jason Rapert, is a call for a Constitutional Convention, not just an amendment to the Constitution. Article 5 of the Constitution says that a Con-Con is for the purpose of presenting amendments, but it is a Con-Con. This is an unsafe bill and you all need to get your names off it. We have been fighting this issue for decades. The article below by Phyllis Schlafly explains the dangers inherent in this bill. If you assemble a Con-Con, the socialists can do anything they want with an open convention and our Constitution will be lost forever. Under the present climate in Washington where the Republicans are always defeated, we can assure you it will be a runaway convention.
What are the rules proposed for the Con-Con? Who are the delegates that will participate in the convention? Name them. What amendments are they considering?
Secure Arkansas opposes this bill. Please call and email your state representative and senator immediately. If they are a sponsor, ask them to remove their name from this resolution. BOMBARD THEM WITH PHONE CALLS SAYING NO TO THE CON-CON.
Senator Json Rabert (R) Dist 18 Jason.Rapert@senate.ar.gov
Rep Nate Bell (R) Dist 22 email@example.com
Rep Bill Pritchard (R) District 35 Bill.Pritchard@senate.ar.gov
Rep Jonathan Barnett (R) Dist 97 firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep Lori Benedict (R) Dist 82 email@example.com
Rep Mark Biviano (R) Dist 50 firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep Les “Skip” Carnine (R) Dist 94 email@example.com
Rep Carlie Collins (R) Dist 89 firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep Linda Collins-Smith (R) Dist 80 Linda.Collins-Smith@arkansashouse.org
Rep Bruce Cozart (R) Dist 24 email@example.com
Rep Denny Altes (R) Dist 63 firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep Donna Hutchinson (R) Dist 98 email@example.com
Rep David Meeks (R) Dist 46 David.Meeks@arkansashouse.org
Rep Robert E. Dale (R) Dist 70 firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep Gary Deffenbaugh (R) Dist 66 Gary.Deffenbaugh@arkansashouse.org
Rep Eddie Joe Williams (R) Dist 28 EddieJoe.Williams@senate.ar.gov
Rep Jane English (R) Dist 42 email@example.com
Rep Ed Garner (R) Dist 41 firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep Kim Hammer (R) Dist 28 email@example.com
Rep Justin T. Harris (R) Dist 87 Justin.Harris@arkansashouse.org
Rep Kim Hendren (R) Dist 9 Kim.Hendren@senate.ar.gov
Rep Debra M. Hobbs (R) Dist 96 firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep Karen S. Hopper (R) Dist 81 email@example.com
Rep Jon Hubbard (R) Dist 75 firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep Josh Johnston (R) Dist 59 email@example.com
Rep Allen Kerr (R) Dist 32 firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep Bryan B. King (R) Dist 91 email@example.com
Rep Andrea Lea (R) Dist 68 firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep Loy Mauch (R) Dist 26 email@example.com
Rep Stephen Meeks (R) Dist 47 Stephen.Meeks@arkansashouse.org
Rep David J. Sanders (R) Dist 31 firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep Gary Stubblefield (R) Dist 67 email@example.com
Rep Tim Summers (R) Dist 99 firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep Bruce Westerman (R) Dist 30 email@example.com
Rep Jon Woods (R) Dist 93 firstname.lastname@example.org
Senator Cecile Bledsoe (R) Dist 8 Cecile.Bledsoe@senate.ar.gov
Senator David Wyatt (D) Dist 12 David.Wyatt@senate.ar.gov
Senator Jake Files (R) Dist 13 Jake.Files@Senate.ar.gov
Senator Gilbert Baker (R) Dist 30 Gilbert.Baker@senate.ar.gov
Senator Gene Jeffress (D) Dist 25 Gene.Jeffress@senate.ar.gov
Senator Bruce Holland (R) Dist 6 Bruce.Holland@senate.ar.gov
Senator Missy Irvin (R) Dist 10 Missy.Irvin@senate.ar.gov
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson (R) Dist 22 Jeremy.Hutchinson@senate.ar.gov
Senator Johnny Key (R) Dist 1Johnny.Key@senate.ar.gov
Senator Jerry Taylor (D) Dist 23 Jerry.Taylor@senate.ar.gov
Senator Michael Lamoureux (R) Michael.Lamoureux@senate.ar.gov
A Warning About Things to Come
by Phyllis Schlafly
February 25, 2011
Have you seen the television pictures of the tens of thousands of demonstrators at the Wisconsin State Capitol who are protesting proposed budget cuts for state employees? If so, you’ve had an advance peek at the sort of demonstrations thatwill take place if state legislatures are foolish enough to pass resolutions askingCongress to call a national convention to consider amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Barack Obama’s political arm, “Organizing for America,” swelled the crowds by busing in protesters from Wisconsin and from other states, too. A national convention to amend the U.S. Constitution would become the media event of the century, with 24/7 TV coverage, giving us every reason to anticipate that organizing for America” would flood the process of electing delegates and then demonstrate to hurl demands on their deliberations.
All of a sudden, as though someone gave the signal, resolutions are pending in several state legislatures to use the never-before-used power set forth in Article V to petition Congress to “call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” This campaign exploits the frustration of many Americans with Congress’s out-of-control spending, increase in the national debt (with much of it borrowed from China), and passage of laws, such as ObamaCare, that severely limit our freedoms.
Many state legislators are promising that a Convention would be limited to consideration of only one specific amendment. No way. Article V clearly specifies that a Convention is for the purpose of “proposing Amendments” (note the plural).
Furthermore, various state resolutions support different Amendments. Some specify that the one Amendment to be considered must be the Repeal Amendment (to allow states to repeal an act of Congress), others want the one Amendment to be Debt Limitation, others want a Balanced Budget Amendment, others want a change in the Electoral College, others want to abolish the 17th Amendment, and one proposal is for a list of ten Amendments.
When the protesters assemble, we can be sure that many special-interest groups will be pushing their own agendas. You can bet that a once-in-a-lifetime Convention will attract activists demanding union rights (like the Wisconsin demonstrators), gay rights, gun control, abortion rights, ERA, and D.C. Statehood.
Calling a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution would be a plunge into darkness because the only rules to govern it are those specified in Article V. It takes two-thirds (34) of the states to pull the trigger, Congress controls and issues the Call, and the Convention must consider Amendments (in the plural).
Anyone who has attended a national political convention knows very well that the guy with the gavel exercises ruthless power. I’ve attended 15 Republican National Conventions plus many other national, state and district political conventions, and I’ve seen every kind of high-handed tactic and rules broken with the bang of the gavel, including cutting off mikes, recognizing only pre-chosen delegates, expelling unwanted delegates, cheating on credentials and rules, fixing the voting machines, etc., etc.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a national hero for winning the case that persuaded a judge to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional, stated on the steps of the Capitol in Richmond on January 17: “What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want.”
That blows away the silly claims by advocates of a new Convention, such as the so-called Goldwater Institute in Arizona (which was never known by Barry Goldwater), that the state legislatures can “define the agenda of an Amendments Convention,” restricting it to a specific Amendment or a single subject.
The Goldwater Institute cites Article V language that no state can “be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate” to allegedly prove that an Amendments Convention cannot “rewrite the entire Constitution.” Au contraire. Saying that a Convention cannot do one thing actually means that the Convention can do everything else except that one thing.
Goldwater Institute spokesmen try to predict what procedures would be followed by an Amendments Convention, but in fact nobody knows what procedures would be used. Congress has defeated all bills that tried to establish rules, so we don’t know how the delegates would be chosen, whether they would be paid, how they would be apportioned among the states, whether they would have to have a super-majority to vote out a new Amendment, etc., etc.
Goldwater Institute spokesmen try to claim James Madison is on their side, but their history is as faulty as their arguments. Madison wrote: “Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second.”
More information from Phyllis Schlafly on a Call for a Constitutional Convention:
Copy of the Bill at this link