MEDIA IGNORES VASTLY IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

You may be aware of Mark Levin's book "The Liberty Amendments" released last year which called for a "Convention of the States". Article 5 of the Constitution gives the several states the ability to convene a convention in which the Constitution may be amended, changed, or even scrapped.

Last week Michigan's legislature voted and passed a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention. They are the 34th state to do so, and this should trigger the Convention of the States.

Pretty major, yet the MSM is ignoring it. 

The most important political development in 200 years was triggered last week, when the state legislature of Michigan became the 34 ^th state to demand a "Constitutional Convention" in the United States. Under Article 5 of the US Constitution, if 2/3rds of the states call for such a convention, (meaning 34 states) it MUST take place. During such a convention, the ENTIRE Constitution can be changed; nothing is off-limits. This would even allow the States to dismantle the federal government without its consent, and repudiate the debt which that government has incurred! When it voted for the convention last week, Michigan became the 34 ^th state, thus meeting the requirement.

A goal has been reached behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes. This is the most significant political development in the entire world in the last 200 years. 

At issue is what's known as a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendment to date – requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”

The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years -- but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it.

Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds.

In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on today to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment -- something that could be done at a constitutional convention.

“Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan is the 34^th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote.

“With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House – and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment -- determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should this be the case."

If two-thirds of the states indeed have applied, the ball is presumably in Congress' court to call the convention.

But Article V is rather vague, and it's ultimately unclear whether 34 states have technically applied. In the past, states like Oregon, Utah and Arizona have quietly voted to approve the provision in their legislature.

But some of the 34 or so have rescinded their requests. Others have rescinded, and then re-applied.

Alabama rescinded its request in 1988 but in 2011, lawmakers again applied for a convention related to an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced. It was a similar story in Florida in 2010.

Louisiana rescinded in 1990 but lawmakers have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to reinstate the application since then.

It's unclear whether the applications still count in these scenarios.

Some constitutional scholars like Gregory Watson, an analyst in Texas, say once states ask, there may be no take-backs.

“There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether a state that has approved an application may later rescind that application,” Watson told The Washington Times. “If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio’s 2013 application for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33 ^rd and Michigan’s 2014 application would be the 34^th on that topic.”

Others say if a state changes its mind, it can no longer be part of the 34.

Even if the requisite number of states have applied, questions remain about how such a convention would work -- and whether, as Michigan wants, such a convention could be limited to only discussing a balanced-budget amendment.

It still may be a long shot, but some analysts are warning about the unintended consequences of such a move.

In Louisiana, Budget Project Policy Analyst Steve Spire argued against the state's resolution, saying the convention could permanently damage the nation’s political system. What he calls "damage" others call improvement.

CHANGES THAT CAN BE MADE

Change from a federal form of national government, back to a confederacy, which was what existed prior to adoption of the Constitution in 1789. No, not the one that existed during the Civil War, the one that existed between the time we won the Revolutionary War and the time we adopted the US Constitution. What's that you say, you never knew the United States was a Confederacy before the Constitution? So much for public school education. In fact, the U.S. was a Confederacy and under that form of government, there is NO NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, just states that agree to do business with each other and to defend each other if attacked. How's that for simple?

              

If we make the mistake of keeping a federal government, we could dramatically curtail its powers. All elected officials could be term-limited. Judges could be term limited. The jurisdiction of the federal government could be for commerce only; no longer allowing it criminal prosecution powers, leaving that to the states alone.

All Treaties currently in force, could be scrapped. We could cancel our participation in NATO no longer having to assure the safety of Europe by shedding American blood to settle their squabbles. (World War I, World War II, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo etc.) Make Europe defend itself. We could scrap the Treaties with South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, making them defend themselves rather than pledging American blood to keep them safe. After all, for the fifty years or more that we have guaranteed the security of these countries, what have they done for us? Hint: Nothing.

We could scrap the Treaties with Russia concerning our nuclear arsenal, allowing us to re-arm to face the new challenges posed by China becoming a super-power, India, Pakistan and Israel becoming nuclear powers.

We could do away with the federal power to make war; delegating that power to a simple majority of the fifty state legislatures voting in concert.

We could do away with the Federal Reserve which creates money out of thin air, causing inflation to erode our savings and earnings, and start printing our own real money, backed by gold, silver, platinum etc. No more central Bankers to parasite off our hard work the way they do now.

We could do away with the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register, both of which stifle American ingenuity through reams of government regulation.

We could put people ahead of animals and do away with rules that forbid development of land because some little creature lives on it.

We could do away with the Department of Education, which during its existence, has seen the education level of American children drop from #1 in the world to somewhere toward the bottom. This department is a complete and total failure and it should be wiped out of existence.

We could do away with the Department of Energy, which was created during the Carter Administration for the purpose of weening the United States off imported oil. Ask yourself this simple question: In the forty years it has been in existence, has the Department of Energy even come close to achieving what it was created to do? No. It is another total failure and it should be wiped out of existence.

We could become energy self-sufficient within a year, by allowing our own natural resources to be developed- then tell the Arabs to take their oil and shove it.

We could stop the hand-outs to the permanent welfare class, forcing them to get off their good-for-nothing lazy butts and get a job.

We could do away with the income tax!

We could restore the free market in EVERY industry; getting government out of the way so that entrepreneurs can create new and better products and services to improve all our lives.

This would be a new beginning for America; a new chance at vast prosperity, personal liberty and personal responsibility.