AmericaElect, Article V convention, Barack Obama, Compact for America, constitutional convention, Convention of the States, David Barton, George Soros, Glenn Beck, Google, Mark Levin, Mark Meckler, nancy-pelosi, Nick Dranias, Occupy Wall Street, Progressive Democrats of America, Progressive Establishment, Van Jones
…Whether or not you may decide a ConCon is a direction to go, it is imperative to trust the leadership behind the organization promoting it. Major concern exists with one very visible effort, CompactForAmerica.org
Compact for America (CFA) is promoting their brand of ConCon as a “BBA” or balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. They have a pathway to doing this that would supposedly cut the process from years to months. A critique of their proposal can be found here. However, whether you agree with their proposal or not, it is the leadership behind this particular effort that needs much closer scrutiny.
CFA is made up of three board members and an advisory council with some impressive resumes under their belts. However, some of them have previously been involved in work and associations that bring great concern about anything they would be leading, as well as their long term agenda….
Below are just a handful of the groups, names that have been attached to the movement for a Constitutional Convention, names and organizations of which should serve as a warning to all that this ConCon is other than what it is asserted to be.
Compact for America
Progressive Democrats of America
Occupy Wall Street
Beck, Meckler, Barton and Levin are playing for the wrong team….or can it be that they are actually party to the Progressive establishment?
In any event, note the players, the writing is on the wall, deception is in the air. No Constitutional Convention.
Nick Dranias said:
Contrary to the fear-mongering of this article (everyone is hiding in plain site, by the way), the Compact for America approach to Article V is actually designed to anticipate and minimize all plausible risks of using the Article V convention process to zero compared to relying on status quo politics.
Here are a few of the Compact’s uniquely powerful risk-minimization features:
1. The Compact is not a “build the convention, and good amendments will come” approach. The Compact specifies the amendment that will be proposed or rejected at the convention. The amendment is a powerful, yet plausible fix for the national debt problem—McLaughlin & Associates poll-tested each component and found supermajority support for each policy element. The core of the Compact’s Balanced Budget Amendment is that of requiring a referendum of the states for any increase in a constitutional debt limit for the federal government. This will return the states to a role in the national policy debate, as they once enjoyed before the 17th Amendment, and target that renewed authority to a clear policy problem area—the federal government’s debt addiction. We believe that this one reform will fix the core structural problem underlying the national debt problem—that of the federal debtor having exclusive and unlimited control over its credit limit. We don’t trust school boards with such unilateral bond issuance authority—and the federal government
has hardly earned greater trust.
2. The Compact occupies all logistical spaces of the Article V convention process by
designating in advance all delegates, convention rules (what constitutes a quorum, whether each state gets one vote), convention location, and convention timing. This will prevent Congress from attempting to occupy those spaces and transforming the Article V convention into a mini-Congress–as it has already tried to do at least twice before with bills purporting to determine convention delegates and rules.
3. The Compact is designed not to trigger any call for an Article V convention until at least 38 states join the compact (the number needed for ratification) AND Congress gives implied consent to the compact via concurrent resolution. In other words, a super-supermajority of the states (most likely in population as well as in states) will have adopted the compact’s logistical rules before attending any convention, ensuring those rules control the convention. Further, the compact is designed to co-opt Congress, rather than conflict with Congress,
so as to avoid any litigation risk from Congress claiming power to control the convention. Additionally, current case law regards congressional consent as giving the imprimatur of federal law to a compact. Thus, the convention will only be called when the compact is regarded as both state and federal law. The same is not true of a non-compact approach to Article V.
4. The Compact has a seven year sunset provision. This is designed to ensure that an Article V convention will not be triggered in a totally unknown political environment, and also to ensure that the policy and political judgments underpinning the Balanced Budget Amendment carried by the Compact remain viable. Quite frankly, beyond seven years, it may very well be too late for a Balanced Budget Amendment.
5. Like the Colorado River Compact, the Compact would be a contract, not just a law, and it would contractually bind all of its member states—at least 38 before the convention can be called—under the United States Constitution’s contracts clause. This is important not only for enforcing its convention logistics provisions, but also to lock down its prohibition on all member states participating in a convention that would attempt to disregard those provisions. Most significantly, the Compact binds all member states to rejecting ratification of any amendment that might be proposed by the convention other than the specific Balanced Budget Amendment the compact contemplates.
6. The Compact organizes a commission populated and controlled by the first three member states to oversee and enforce the logistics of the Article V convention. The commission is organized as soon as two states join the Compact. This commission not only will help maintain an orderly amendment process in which the states retain control over logistics and oversight, it could draw an early legal challenge to the Compact’s convention logistics long before there is any risk that a convention will be called. This is a feature, not a bug, because we want the courts to confirm the “rules of the road” for the amendment process long in advance of a convention being called. We do not want to have to deal with court intervention as the convention is being called or conducted—although we are confident the Compact will prevail in any litigation (the constitutionality of the Compact has been vetted and confirmed not only by me, but by Senior Judge Harold DeMoss of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals—in a personal capacity, Shane Krauser, Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Ph.D., J.D., and Ilya Shapiro, J.D. of the Cato Institute).
For more information, including fact sheets as well as videos of presentations and legislative testimony, please visit http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/compactforabalancedbudget
So, um, Mr. Dranias, this “amendment” runs to , what, 2,700 pages? Or it’s just all the mumbo jumbo and rules and commissions and boards and inquiries and court proceedings and publicity campaigns and propaganda campaigns that so far runs to 2,700 pages and which which are going to cost a lot of money. You’re going to have to hire some illegal aliens to do the work Americans won’t do just dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s in the grand strategy you present You need some donations, Mr. Dranias? Yes? You probably need some donations , don’t you? In fact, you probably need lots of donations. Wishing you a lot of luck with that. As far as all the gobbledyegook you wrote in your comment, I have seen three-act farces which made more sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, no Bob, the amendment is a single page. The compact agreement is 10 pages. You can read it here: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/compactforabalancedbudget
Given that this is fiscal/legal stuff, you can expect some things that you might not understand without experience in law or fiscal policy. But watch the videos and read the fact sheets and you’ll figure it out.
And yes, if you don’t want to get engaged personally to fix the national debt, a donation would be nice. Please write the Goldwater Institute a very large check. It would be tax deductible. Thank you for your support.
On behalf of myself and a whole big passel of ordinary Americans out here who don’t “understand” fiscal/legal stuff, but have no problem reading Article V of the Constitution and no problem recognizing snake oil salesmen, I’d like to thank you for the invitation to watch videos and read fact sheets. Oh, and that check? Well, it’s, uh, it’s in the, uh……you know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then read Article V. Notice that the convention for proposing amendments is in the same sentence as clause giving Congress the power to propose amendments and that both powers are limited by the same ratification requirement. Notice that both amendment powers are limited by a sentence that prevents denying each state of its equal sovereignty in the Senate. Notice that the only reasonable conclusion is that both amendment powers are the same, just exercised by two different bodies. Notice that the power of state legislatures in organizing a convention depends on the meaning of the word “application.” And then do some research to determine whether the states can use the convention for proposing amendments to obtain desired amendments by specifying the amendment they desire in their application. I suggest starting here: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/02/did-george-washington-tell-a-lie-about-state-control-over-article-v-amendments/
I’ll be waiting for the check when you decide you’re initial judgment was wrong.
In my research I have found that there has never been an “Article V Convention”, so contrary to your claims that the states can do this, that and the other, the science is not settled, Mr. Dranias. The Supreme irony of your pleadings is that you admit as much in your comments above saying it depends on what the word “application” means. Do tell. Further, you talk about how you’re going to find a Court somewhere to tell everybody what the rules of this thing are while out of the other side of your mouth telling everybody the states can determine the delegates, set the agenda, book hotel reservations and all the rest. Apparently those details are in the HIDDEN clauses of Article V.
Perhaps the most comical thing of all is that in your rant above you talk about getting all your ducks in a row before you call this mythical convention by getting 38 states on board and a majority of Congress. Well, duh! Don’t need a convention if everybody is already on board, now do we,, Mr. Dranias?
You protesteth yourself into a corner. Gobbledygook, gibberish, it depends on what the meaning of “is” is, and snake oil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bob, you are obviously unwilling to accept what I’m writing. So please visit http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/compactforabalancedbudget visit http://www.compactforamerica.org and do your own homework.
OH, since I don’t accept what you wrote here, I’m to go to the Goldwater Institute and accept what you wrote *there*? Okay, going….Ok, went. Don’t accept it there either. The descriptors applicable above – gobbledygook, gibberish and snake oil are applicable there, too.
This scourge we have of the budget not being balanced, which is supposedly the basis for all this verbiage, you say can be ignored IF two-thirds of the legislatures say Congress can do it, according to your Amendment. Mr. Dranias, do you know when my legislature is in session? Do you know when YOUR legislature is in session? Do you know when ANY, or a FEW, or ENOUGH of the legislatures would be in session? You keep referring to the constitutions of the fifty states and saying this “Compact” will supercede state laws, but not state Constitutions. Have you studied State Constitutions to see whether it falls within the purview of State Legislatures to vote on ACts of Congress of the United States of America? Even if they would happen to be in session when Congress got a hair up its rear end?
“herewith, henceforth, to the contrary notwithstanding” Amen and amen. Hallelujah, even.
Speaking of cheek and gall. In your infinite wisdom and “legal and fiscal” shrewdness, you include in your little Compact that all parties will agree to abide by any court proceedings in re this issue emanating from the US Northern District of Texas venue AND/OR …wait for it folks, this is rich …..any State of Texas courts which happen to lie within the geographical boundaries of that Federal District Court in Texas. Yeah, uh huh. That’ll happen. You are not serious, Dranias. At least not about balancing the budget of the United States of America. You may be about other things, which may require people to go along with your gobbledygook to, like Nancy Pelosi said of the PPACA, “find out what’s in it.”
But chances are you’re not even serious about that. Chances are the only thing you’re serious about is the DONATIONS part.
Either way…..no thank you.