http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news113.htm

GRASSROOTS ACTIVISTS DERAIL OHIO CON-CON RESOLUTION

By news writer Sarah Foster
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
December 15, 2008
© NewsWithViews.com

Fwd'd by AZ State Senator Karen Johnson (R-LDS)


COLUMBUS, Ohio An attempt by GOP lawmakers to sneak a resolution through the state legislature last week calling for a constitutional convention or con con -- was halted, at least until next year, by a hastily assembled coalition of grassroots activists who lobbied representatives at the state capitol and testified against the controversial measure during its committee hearing Wednesday.

I believe it was Gods blessing that we found out about it and were able to organize quickly and put a stop to it being voted on today by the committee and the House. It was moving very quickly, activist Teri Owens told NewsWithViews that evening.

We seem to have put a kink in their plans because this had been introduced very quietly and we almost missed it, she said. We had no idea this was coming down the pike.

Rep. Matt Huffman, a Republican first-term member of the House of Representatives, the General Assemblys lower chamber, waited until Dec. 3 to introduceHouse Joint Resolution 8, which if passed by both houses would make Ohio the 33rd state to petition Congress to call a constitutional convention. Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, when the legislatures of two-thirds (34) of the states have passed a petitioning resolution, Congress is mandated to convene a convention.

Fourteen Republican legislators signed on as cosponsors but no Democrats.

On Dec. 9, the day before the hearing for HJR 8,Sen. Keith Faber (R), introduced its companion bill,Senate Joint Resolution 9, in the State Senate.

As with similar resolutions introduced over the years in Ohio and other states, HJR 8 and SJR 9 limit discussion and consideration to one amendment (in this instance, a Balanced Budget Amendment) to the Constitution, and Ohio delegates would be bound not to address or vote on any other issue that might be introduced.

Russian Roulette with the Constitution

Calling a constitutional convention has been a hot-button issue for over three decades. Although it is one of two methods Article V of the Constitution provides for amendment, it has never been used. The danger in holding a con con, according to most legal scholars, is that once the delegates are assembled there is no way to limit debate to one topic, and it is possible that an entirely new Constitution could be introduced and ratified.

As former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in 1983, in an oft-quoted letter to Phyllis Schafly, president ofEagle Forum:

I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress for the sole and express purpose.

A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention.

Which is why Schafly characterized a con con as playing Russian roulette with the Constitution.

And it is why national organizations across the political spectrum have opposed calling one. These include the John Birch Society, Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, Daughters of the American Revolution, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way.

Theyve been largely successful. Following an initial spate of approvals during the 1970s, during which some 30 states passed con-con resolutions, no state has followed their lead since 1983, though numerous attempts have been made. Several states have rescinded their resolutions, but it is questionable that Congress will acknowledge these rescissions.

HJR 8 brings the con-con issue back into public debate.

A Slam-Dunk Passage

The plan apparently was for the committee to hear the bill (with no adverse testimony allowed), vote in its favor, and send it straight to the floor of the House for a slam-dunk passage. They had good reason for confidence. HJR 8s introduction this late in the session meant that likely opponents wouldnt be aware of it until it was signed into law. Moreover, the measure was assigned to the 11-member Judiciary Committee, comprised of five Democrats and six Republicans, four of whom were cosponsors.

Although Democrats took the House in the Nov. 4 election, it remains under Republican control until Jan. 3, essentially guaranteeing HJR 8s passage if it was waved through committee. The GOP still holds the Senate by a commanding majority.

To top it off, the Judiciary Committee is chaired byRep. Louis Blessing, a Republican whos been with the Ohio Legislature either in the Senate or House for 25 years. Though not a cosponsor of HJR 8, back in 1987 Blessing had cosponsored a similar resolution, which was defeated.

Hes a 20-year champion for getting a con-con through, Teri Owens observed.

Wednesdays scenario didnt happen as planned, but only because theInstitute for Principled Policy, an Ohio-based think tank, learned of it the Friday before the scheduled hearing wrote up an incisiveanalysis with what-to-do instructions and posted these on the Internet. In its analysis the IPP warned:

Kiss the second amendment goodbye, in favor of a collective right to self-defense, meaning no private ownership of firearms or other weapons. Only police and armed forces (not to mention criminals) will have guns. Kiss the much battered and abused 4th and 5th amendments goodbye. Watch for the 1st Amendment to be revised into a meaningless jumble of verbiage which any court can feel free to misconstrue at will. The same for the rest of the Bill of Rights.

"State sovereignty as guaranteed in the 9th and 10th Amendments and Article IV of the Constitution? An archaic idea whose time has passed in a modern world. It will be chucked in favor of wording which would allow easy melding of the United States of America with its northern and southern neighbors into a United States of North and South America as part of a regional world governance scheme under the UN.

The news was picked up by the umbrella groupOhio Freedom Alliance and handed along to activists nationwide in a cyberspace tag-team.

Critics faced a major hurdle: no testimony would be allowed at the hearing. Ohioans and constitutionalists from around the country flooded the offices of committee members and other lawmakers with a phone calls and e-mails. It was apparently this massive outpouring of state and national indignation that persuaded Blessing to change his mind, though he has not admitted this. Whatever the reason, the chairman agreed to permit testimony.

Teri Owens shared details of the hearing with NewsWithViews.com.

On Wednesday, a total of 10 speakers representing theInstitute for Principled Policy, theOhio Freedom Alliance, theLibertarian Party of Ohio, theConstitution Party of Ohio, theJohn Birch Society,Campaign for Liberty, andWe Are Change Ohio were able to address the issue and answer questions. Of those 10, perhaps one had ever testified before a committee.

Most of us were frightened, but we knew we didnt have a choice, said Owens. It was something we had to do.

Rep. Huffman, who authored HJR 8, presented the only testimony in its favor. Owens said that during his remarks he turned to face their group, telling them that he knew that those in opposition were there out of fear that opponents of the con-con are just fearful of whats going to happen.

So we impressed on the committee that it was not about fear, but about wisdom, Owens said. We laid out every objection that there is to a con-con.

NOTE: Their testimony is transcribed and posted with some videos -- on the Institute for Principled Policys website and the website forPeaceChicken.com.

Their work paid off. The committee did not take a vote on Wednesday and the latest word is that it will not do so at this time. Its companion SJR9 will not be heard in committee. So it appears the con con is dead for this session but it will definitely be reintroduced next year. Moreover, a staff member in Blessings office told NewsWithViews that the chairman can call the committee for an emergency session at any time and a vote could then be taken.

Barry Sheets of IPP warns, Anything can happen until the General Assembly adjourns sine die [indefinitely], which may be held off until the very end of the year given the instability of the states budget. They may, or the governor could, call an emergency session to deal with issues, so we need to stay on guard until that last gavel drops on the 127th General Assembly.

A Con Con to Kill the Constitution

In February, NWV columnist Jon Ryter posed the questionCould the 2008 Election Bring the End of America as We Know It?, and stated that the new president, whoever that would be, had been tasked with abolishing the economic sovereignty of the United States.

Hemispheric government -- through the merging of Canada and Mexico with the United States, followed by the inclusion of Central and then South America into what will be called the American Union with the absolute loss of national sovereigntyis just around the corner, Ryter predicted.

Ryter further predicted that citizen groups will push for a constitutional convention in an attempt to head this off, with the argument advanced that this is the only way to thwart the Council on Foreign Relations plan to formalize the North American Union.

With globalist McCain, Clinton or Obama in the White House, the argument will appear to contain enough truth that it will draw supporters like metal shaving to a magnet, Ryter declared. In addition, proponents of the Convention will argue that only a constitutional amendment will force the federal government to deport all illegal aliens. Again, it will sound logical.