Tuesday, February 19, 2013

At Wetzel's Corner:

There’s been lots of chatter regarding a proposed Constitutional Convention- and emails describing how great it would be to get to reword the 2nd amendment so there’s no more confusion on what it truly means, limiting Congressional pay raises, etc. I received ANOTHER forwarded email last week from a well-meaning, but low-information acquaintance. I sent him a reply, outlining exactly what a ConCon would mean, and after reading Brock’s story HERE. I figured that I’d post my email response on The Beam.

Dear X:

Supporting a Constitutional Convention would be a huge mistake.

There’s a big difference between a Constitutional Amendment and a Constitutional Convention.

Congressional pay, perks, and slapping down the freedom-restraining regulations that have been put in place over the years can be done away with in the same manner as they were enacted. By legislators voting the laws away and defunding! Worst case, call an amendment to the Constitution, which needs ratified by ¾ of the States.(Article V). But not a ConCon.

A Constitutional Convention is a very dangerous thing.

A Constitutional Convention does not just open up the Constitution for the things that you want to address; a ConCon opens up the entire document for modification, INCLUDING the Bill of Rights, all the Amendments, EVERYTHING! Every looter, moocher and societal slug will be there with their hands out, and politicians will be too eager to appease them. Every group that hates America and Liberty will be there, with lots of funding. Do you think George Soros would sit on the sidelines and watch a ConCon, or would he pay for his ilk be there in droves?

The Founders gave us the most Liberty with the least government, and protected future generations from themselves by intentionally making a ConCon very difficult to call. Don’t support one.

The Founders were much smarter than any one of us today; they lived under Tyranny, knew Tyranny’s underpinnings, and knew Tyrants.

Would you trust our current Political Class to have at the bedrock of our Liberty?

Would they protect Liberty, or would they massage our Law of the Land to benefit them and their power?

Some examples:
We need to be more diverse, let’s get rid of that ‘Natural Born Citizen’ requirement for the executive…
The First Amendment? Let’s keep that one in, but let’s make sure that no one can be offended so we’ll put a Hate Speech clause in there.
The Second Amendment? Only for Sporting and hunting, no one needs a scary black ASSAULT rifle!
The third? Well, nobody is forced to keep soldiers in their homes anymore, that’s old and archaic, we can just leave that one out altogether.
The fourth? But we need to keep safe from suspected terrorists, let’s make sure that terrorists are excluded! (and we can define what exactly a ‘terrorist’ is, later.)
The Fifth? Maybe, but not for suspected terrorists!
The Sixth- Public trial? …The Seventh- Trial by jury?… the Eighth- Excessive bail and cruel punishment?  Maybe not for ALL occasions…
The Ninth and Tenth, where the government is restrained by specifically enumerated powers, where the rights of the People are unlimited and undefined? Undefined liberty?…We have to keep people SAFE you know!

For the slackers, mooches and leeches- How about a Right to a house, car, etc? Our current political class should never get to open that document. I suspect few have read it and fewer still understand it.

I submit to you that if a ConCon is ever called, we show up, armed. I’ll be there in full kit.



RJIII said...

Amen brother, just read Bracken's
Enemies Foreign and Domestic about
a Con Con and see if ya really want one.

JeremyR said...

Mostly agree, but you are wrong on part of it. They would gut the freedom of religion out of the 1st.
They would do it in such a way that sharia could be implemented.
I'd bank on it.

Soros agitate? heck, he'd likely own 3/4 of the conventioneers.

Dave said...

Well said