Constitutional Convention Confusion

I hate chain emails. They're often nothing more than hastily copied-and-pasted ramblings that are full of inaccuracies and hysteria. A dear friend forwarded one such email to me recently. It was about a proposed 28th amendment to the U. S. Constitution (full text below). The wording of the proposed amendment: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

That's fine, but the rest of the email is fraught with half-truths. Nevertheless, it reminded me of a few constitutional issues currently ongoing. Before we look further at that email, let's remember the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th Amendment is all about "states' rights," and is a crucial element of American federalism. Put simply, it guarantees that any powers that are not specifically assigned to the federal government is reserved for the states and the citizenry.

The so-called "proposed 28th amendment" seems like a good idea in spirit. After all, we're all supposed to be equal under the law.

The proposed wording in the email, however, is too simple and based on too many assumptions, too few facts and downright errors. For example, the email erroneously says that "Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention." To my knowledge, and according to my research, this is false.

It is true, however, that 21 states are currently enjoined in suing the federal government over last year's health care reform overhaul. They claim it is unconstitutional for a number of reasons, including the infringement of states' rights. (The states will probably lose in this effort.) Not surprisingly, Obama's Justice Department is moving to crush the suit. The 21 states are: AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, TX, and WA.

In May 2010, reports FoxNews, "A group of Republican lawmakers launched a task force on Thursday that seeks to reclaim the powers they say the federal government has unconstitutionally taken away from the 50 states. The 10th Amendment Task Force, a project of the Republican Study Committee, will develop and promote proposals that aim to usher in what supporters are calling a 'New Era of Federalism.' 'When federalism is out of balance, people get hurt,' Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, one of the group's 10 co-founding members, said at a news conference Thursday. 'We want to empower state and local governments'." 

Back to the email about "the 28th amendment," (my comments in red):

Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention. 

NOTE: Not true. There are two ways to amend the U.S. Constitution. According to Lexis Nexis, "Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment." Did you notice the part that says that two-thirds of the House and Senate must approve it? Uh huh. Then it goes to the states. The other method requires "a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states." 

"Two thirds" of 50 state legislatures is 33.33333. Whether that's rounded to 33 or 34 is immaterial: The email falsely claims that "it only takes 38 (of the 50) States" to call a constitutional convention. That's an error of at least five states.

This (proposed amendment) will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.

An idea whose time has come

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.

NOTE: This is misinformation. Members of Congress do NOT retire with full pay. From FoxNews, December 2007: Members of Congress are eligible for one of two plans, depending on when they were first elected. Members elected before 1983 take part in the CSRS plan which has more generous defined benefits. Members elected after 1983 take part in the FERS plan available to all federal employees. It has a smaller defined benefit but a more generous 401(k) (described more fully below). Members under the old CSRS plan receive a pension equal to 2.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus, a member who serves 10 years would receive a pension equal to 25 percent of his salary. Members under the new FERS plan receive pension equal to 1.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus a Member serving 10 years would receive a pension equal to 15 percent of his salary. (More at FoxNews. Fox also notes that, since 1983, members of Congress do pay Social Security.)

Snopes.com also notes the falsehood of the claim of lavish pensions for members of Congress. (See http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp) 

Even if Congressional pensions were altered in some way, that would not affect the similarly large pensions enjoyed by many former city council members, state legislators and other elected officials, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of local, county, state and federal bureaucrats. The proponent/s of this amendment also walk the razor's edge of demanding that everyone in America be paid exactly the same wages. Some call that communism. To be frank, I like to think that a member of Congress is paid generously. 

Why? Simple: National security. A well-paid member of Congress is less likely to want or need to take bribes, from lobbyists or agents of foreign nations. Well paid public officials are generally not as inclined to steal as those who are not. Ask any police officer in Tijuana.

Have each person contact a minimum of twenty people on their Address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

NOTE: Not true, and it's faulty arithmetic. Let's say you send the email to 20 friends, and each of them send it to 20 people on the first day. That would 20 x 20, or 400 people. On day two, those 400 each send the email to 20 friends. That would be another 8,000. 

On day three, each of those 8,000 people sends it to 20 of their contacts. That's 160,000. Let's go on to day four, where 20 x 160,000 becomes 3,200,000 (about 1/10th of the U.S. population). On day five: 64,000,000. On day six: 1,280,000,000 (that's one billion, two hundred eighty million). Granted, the email could theoretically reach an enormous number of people in a short time. However, the email specifically claimed that it would reach "most people" in the U.S. "in three days." There are just over 300 million people in the U.S. "Most" of them would be just over 150,000,000. As we see, nowhere near that number would be reached in three days, and in reality the email would frequently be either ignored, not forwarded, or lost in spam bins.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

You are one of my 20.

Please: Don't forward this to anybody.

Must-Read: Obama’s Stealth Treachery

The always hard hitting Canada Free Press listened to Obama's Inaugural Speech last week. They analyzed it. In a column titled "The Camouflaged Treachery In Obama’s Inaugural Speech," they report the results of their analysis. (Note: "Treachury" is the British/Canadian spelling of the American "treachery.") Excerpts: In his message to the third world, Obama said this: "And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.” But what this phrase really means is to prepare us for the one-world-order and the dissolution of our sovereignty. It also means that Obama wants us to use up a large portion of our wealth and give it, free gratis with no strings, to other countries and dictators who refuse to use their own resources to elevate their own people. We are the most generous nation on Earth, but Obama and his minions in the U. S. Government and the United Nations tell us, it isn’t enough. We have to give more, no matter how much it hurts our economy, or our individual lives, or our living standard. FULL COLUMN at Canada Free Press... Subscribe to Chicago News Bench

Cinqo de Mayo Confusing for Liberals

O Liberals! How confusing May 5th must be for you. Cinqo de Mayo is a celebration of nationalism, sovereignty, and violence. To top it off, it encourages drunk driving and is therefore a threat to the safety of children all over the U.S. My, my, my. Cinqo de Mayo encourages drunk driving. Where are Mothers Against Drunk Driving on this? Cinqo de Mayo," an excuse for drunks in the United States to tie one on, as with St. Patrick's Day, is more of a U.S. celebration than it is in the countries they pretend to celebrate. Cinqo de Mayo celebrates nationalism! Yep, it was all about the Battle of Pueblo, in which Mexicans defended their national sovereignty! Yes, their borders! Cinqo de Mayo celebrates violence in defense of national sovereignty! So, how do all those nutty Liberals who wear buttons that say "Violence Is Not The Answer" feel about this celebration of carnage at the Battle of Pueblo? The Battle of Pueblo is what Cinqo de Mayo commemorates. It was a battle that Mexico won against French imperialist forces, but did not prevent France from actually winning the war. The French forces suffered some embarrassing early defeats, [such as the Battle of Pueblo] but were able to occupy Mexico City in June 1863. They established a puppet government under Austro-Hungarian Archduke Fernando Maximilian, who was named emperor of Mexico in 1864. (Source) So, eventually, the French won the war. Cinco de Mayo remembers the Mexican victory over France on May 5th, 1862 at the Battle of Pueblo.... The French would regroup and eventually take Mexico City. The Emperor Maximilian ruled portions of Mexico on behalf of France until he was executed in 1867. However, the heroism of the Mexicans at Pueblo showed the French and the world that they were willing to defend their country. The Mexicans had no intention of losing badly as they had in the Mexican-American War a mere 15 years earlier. (Source) As would be with their Panama Canal effort, the French just couldn't complete the mission and ultimately failed miserably. But the Battle of Pueblo had nothing to do with the ultimate failure of the French occupation. Tonight, while you're getting sloppy on tequila and margaritas, toast the brave efforts of those violent patriots who so bravely defended their national sovereignty.

Vatican As Hostile Nation

The Vatican is a country, a nation. Its official name (in English) is the "Holy See." Like every other nation, the Vatican has borders. The Vatican defends its borders, which it has a right to do. But the Vatican is telling another nation, the United States, that it should not defend its own borders: A top Vatican official called the Bush administration's plans for hundreds of miles of new security fences on the United States-Mexico border "inhuman." When he was asked specifically about President George W. Bush's plan to sign legislation approving the construction of 700 miles of security fences along the border, Cardinal Martino offered praise for the Catholic bishops in Mexico and the United States who have spoken against it. He called the plan "an inhuman program, which is what the construction of that wall and all others is," according to Reuters. Full Story... Cardinal Martino, who heads the Vatican's Council for Justice and Peace, is a hypocrite. And people are worried about presidential candidate Mitt Romney because he's a Mormon? What about the Catholic Rudy Giuliani? I must have missed all the stories about the Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) calling for the U.S. give up the right to defend its own borders. If you have a copy of any of those news stories, please forward them to me. Now hold on. I am NOT anti-Catholic. Get me to a Friday fish fry and I'm a happy guy. I am criticizing the Vatican, not individuals who are of the Catholic faith. So cool down. Digger wrote this outstanding headline recently: Vatican Cardinal Decries Border Walls While Standing Behind Vatican Border Walls. An excerpt from Digger's posting: These people want no borders. They do not believe in any nation defending itself - except Vatican City. They would allow terrorists, drug runners, criminals, fraudsters or anyone wanting to do harm to a country to be free to enter it and do so. Here's where the hypocrisy comes in. Cardinal Martino (a prince of the nation of the Vatican), tells us we should not enforce our borders with a wall. But the Vatican has walls. They have the Swiss Guard, which enforces their own walled border. And there are stories such as this: The Vatican's attorney general Nicola Picardi released the astounding statistic at the start of 2007: The tiny nation's justice department in 2006 had to contend with 341 civil and 486 criminal cases. In a population of 492, that measures out to 1.5 cases per person -- twenty times the corresponding rate in Italy. By this measurement at least, crime is soaring in the Vatican in spite of a security force that would put a police state to shame. The seat of the Catholic Church has one Swiss guard for every four citizens, not to mention museum guards and police assigned to the Vatican by Italy. Full Story... Digger, then, asked a reasonable question. Why is it okay for the Vatican to hide behind its walls, with a police force to guard it, but the Vatican can tell us that we cannot have a wall on our southern border? And while we're asking questions, why are so many Liberals so eager to quote the Vatican as an authority on this issue? Will those same Liberals start quoting the Vatican as an authority on abortion issue?

Heads in the Sand

Building a North American Union Conspiracy by Dana Gabriel The deniers, white washers, shills, and propaganda masters are purposely misleading the public into believing that that the North American Union is a conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, most people are too busy or lazy to care and check it out for themselves. Some of the articles debunking the NAU do little of the sort, but even bad propaganda can fool the people. The NAU is being kept secret in the sense that working groups are meeting without public participation or knowledge in some cases, and are conducting business without debate or oversight. Wouldn't the NAU require massive amounts of legislation with new agencies and institutions having to be created? The whole point is to bypass this process. It is through these working groups that the NAU is being formed with unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats assuming the power. In fact, the only legislation that has been introduced by Congress or state legislatures is resolutions to block the NAU. The push for total amnesty, open borders, and the NAU will continue even with the Senate recently blocking the immigration bill. When one starts to read the documentation pertaining to the creation of an NAU, they will find out for themselves that it is much worse than I or others are reporting. FULL ARTICLE...

Conspiracies Don't Have to Be Secret

Well, it depends upon what you are speaking about. If you're simply stating that it's a nice day, then no. If you're talking to yourself, no. One of my favorite bloggers asks in a post today, Is It A Conspiracy If I Talk Openly? She was thoughtfully responding to my post of yesterday, in which I noted that former Mexican President Vicente Fox admitted to the plans to implement a European Union-type system for this continent, to be called the North American Union. It pains me to point this out, but the question indicates a misunderstanding of the word "conspiracy," and the post she wrote exposes a certain naivete about the Big Picture. This is weird, because said blogger is a brilliant lady, whom I respect as a deep thinker. She's very on top of the peak oil situation, but on this one she's missed the story - as have most Americans. A conspiracy does not have to be secret. Two people standing on a stage, being broadcast live to millions, could conspire openly. For instance: A late night talk show host turns to his sidekick and says, "Boy, I'm hungry. Whattaya say we hit Jerry's Famous Deli after the show?" To which his sidekick responds, "Say, that sounds great! Let's go!" Millions of people would have just watched two people conspire to get mile-high pastramis on rye with sides of slaw. Nothing secret there, but a conspriacy nonetheless. See? What my fellow blogger has trouble accepting is the obvious. Vicente Fox made it openly obvious on CNN's Larry King Show the other day It is understandably difficult to believe a plan so huge, to believe in the possibility of the impending blending of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. There are some troubling statements in her post. As "proof" that the looming North American Union is no big deal, she quotes King and Fox. Bolded emphasis is hers: King: Long term currency outlook - is the "Amero" currency unit on the horizon? Fox: North American monetary union is probably not likely in the near term, but possibly in 10 to 20 years as the global economy moves into regional trading blocs. The “amero” currency unit or NAMU (North American Monetary Unit) consisting of United States, Canada and Mexico. The amero would compete against other regional currency blocs such as Asia - renminbi/yuan, Japanese yen, Middle East gold dinar, Euroland euro, South American peso, CFA franc, East Caribbean dollar, etc. At present, Canada currently uses the USD as an unofficial second national currency ‘de facto US-dollarization is well underway in Canada’. At present with the CAD approaching par, more talk for an amero currency unit will become popular in Canada. With the successful implementation of NAFTA - North American Free Trade Agreement, the one dragging component for the amero will be Mexico, but in time this will change. Implementation of the amero currency may actually give Mexico an economic boost thus helping to alleviate Mexican immigration pressures into the United States for those Mexicans seeking financial gain. The amero one day may very well be circulating throughout North America. She goes on to say, "So do you like your ambiguous comments served with salt and pepper or do you prefer good old fashioned Tabasco? Is the Amero on the horizon? Maybe, depending on events that have yet to unfold. "Possibly" in 10-20 years. It certainly won't happen tomorrow. Who knows what the next President may choose to do. Given what is occurring in the rest of the world, it may be inevitable, although the political union we see in the EU does not necessarily follow, considering the other currency unions mentioned in the analysis." Ambiguous? What, you've never heard a politician speak before? It was not ambiguous, it was more like non-specific. Let's revisit the first portion of the Fox excerpt, from above. He said: North American monetary union is probably not likely in the near term, but possibly in 10 to 20 years as the global economy moves into regional trading blocs. In no way does this statement refute the plan to implement the Amero. Au contraire, it confirms it. When Fox says, hey, don't worry, it "possibly" will be here in 10 to 20 years, he is saying, yes! It's coming. Sooner or later, it's coming. Notice that he did not say "at least" 10 to 20 years away. In other words, he left open the possibility of five to ten years. Again, not amiguous; just non-specific. More of that Fox quote: The “amero” currency unit or NAMU (North American Monetary Unit) consisting of United States, Canada and Mexico. The amero would compete against other regional currency blocs such as Asia - renminbi/yuan, Japanese yen, Middle East gold dinar, Euroland euro, South American peso, CFA franc, East Caribbean dollar, etc. Fox gives us more confirmation. More confirmation, and more confirmation. So, let me turn the question around: So do you like your hard to swallow bad news served with salt and pepper or do you prefer good old fashioned Ketchup? Read her well-written post. But then follow the links I've added below from major news outlets both here and in Canada. Then ask yourself whether these well-informed journalists and politicians are just a bunch of paranoid goofballs, or whether some folks just cannot accept the possibility that this nation is about to disappear. SWALLOW THESE LINKS: US President George Bush and Mexico's former leader Vincente Fox should speak more often. President Bush fairly recently scoffed at reports of a North American Union as "conspiratorial."But according to Steve Watson at Infowars.com, the former Mexican head of state has come out with a book that "admits plans for a North American union" and calls for a single currency. See: http://www.infowars.net/articles/october2007/101007Fox.htm Prime Minister Harper officially endorses North American Union ... Canadian National Newspaper, Canada - Oct 1, 2007The Council of Foreign Relations has indeed published a book on its North American Union manifesto entitled "Building a North American Community". Effort seeks to unite US, Canada, Mexico - Journal Gazette and Times-Courier, IL - Oct 2, 2007By CHARLES FOWLER, Toledo There has been much discussion lately about the North American Union, including continuous denial from most of the major media. Vive le Canada - Timeline of the Progress Toward a North American ... Featured Actions. red and white ribbon Join the Red and White Ribbon Campaign for Canadian Sovereignty, and say NO to deep integration and a North American Union.

COME OUT OF YOUR COMA

Canada, Mexico and the United States are about to disappear. Why you and everyone you know are not screaming about this is beyond me. It's befuddling to writer Murray Dobbin, too: If the machinations going on in this country regarding so-called "deep integration" were instead a communist conspiracy to take over the country (you will, of course, have to try hard to imagine this) the news media would be blaring the story. Pundits would pontificate, editorialists would erupt, security forces would be unleashed. Instead, a virtual conspiracy to make the country disappear through assimilation into the U.S. gets barely a mention. FULL ARTICLE... RELATED:

"Deep Integration"—the Anti-Democratic Expansion of NAFTA - The expansion of NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership reveals the road ahead for other nations entering into Free Trade Agreements. It is not a road most nations—or the U.S. public—would knowingly take if they knew where it led.

ATLANTICA: DEMOCRACY'S END GAME (at Rogers Park Bench)

Activists prepare to protest against Atlantica concept - After gearing up for a year, protesters are ready to descend upon Halifax next week to voice their displeasure with a controversial conference on regional trade. From June 14 to 16, roughly 500 business, labour and community representatives will gather at the World Trade and Convention Centre to discuss the Atlantica concept, defined as a united economic trade zone encompassing the Atlantic provinces, parts of Quebec and the northeastern United States.

For once, let’s not be satisfied with second best - My last column on Atlantica engendered some remarkable feedback that requires discussion. Not about Atlantica itself; that ship has sailed – just ask the 300 people who attended the premier’s recent symposium on the Atlantic Gateway. The reaction to my column that needs further exploration is the flurry of calls, e-mails and conversations I have had about my statement that an Atlantica TILMA would be a bad thing for the region. Canada's Deep Integration Into a North American Union - It makes no difference if it is a Liberal or Conservative government in power because for the last 20 years plus both parties have been pushing for the same agenda of deeper integration with the United States. The same people who brought you the Canada-U.S. FTA and NAFTA are busy creating a North American Union.

Atlantica 2007 conference from June 13-16: The Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce (APCC) is hosting the Atlantica 2007 conference at the World Trade and Convention Centre in Halifax. Business leaders throughout the Atlantic provinces say they recognize the opportunity to leverage geography to participate in the global economy and maximize opportunities for growth and prosperity. That means harmonizing regulations, eliminating trade barriers and ensuring the necessary infrastructure is in place — not just transportation infrastructure but energy and communications. For more information, please contact Bill Denyar, president and CEO of APCC at (506) 857-3980 or bdenyar@apcc.ca.

ATLANTICA: DEMOCRACY'S END GAME

Just when you thought globalization, the North American Union and the SPP were a looming threat (and they are), along comes THIS: "An alliance of big business owners" that is "openly plotting the economic Mexicanization" of the Northeastern U.S. and Eastern Canada. (I miss the United States of America. I hope it will live on in legend and in song.) Workers and farmers in the United States and Canada have been largely kept in the dark about the tragedy unleashed on their counterparts in Mexico with the 1994 entrance of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). But the same all-out screwing is about to happen to them. An alliance of big business owners is openly plotting the economic Mexicanization of an important region of the Northeast US and Eastern Canada. They call their new world “Atlantica,” and have imposed their borders around it as if drawing a new “country” on a Risk game board. Here’s the map of “their” new country, not one founded upon democratic decisions, but with orders barked from an unelected elite of corporate flunkies whose only law is to maximize profits for the owners. In other words: the minimum wage must be abolished, labor unions must be crushed, and state governments must be stripped of the resources and/or authority to enforce environmental, labor and consumer safety protections. Low tax and pro-business New Hampshire is held up as embodying the ideal Atlantican way to govern a state while “Vermont’s tax regime” is singled out as a chief obstacle to Atlantican dreams. FULL STORY from Narco News... RELATED: RESIST ATLANTICA Anti-Atlantica movement Atlantica concept defended at SACC AGM Nova Scotia Business Journal, Canada - June 6, 2007 With entrepreneurs, trade unions and employees questioning the wisdom and motives behind the long-established ... Activists prepare to protest against Atlantica concept ChronicleHerald.ca, Canada - June 6, 2007 After gearing up for a year, protesters are ready to descend upon Halifax next week to voice their displeasure with a controversial ... Atlantica Concept discussed at chamber of commerce general meeting Cape Breton Post, Canada - June 5, 2007 SYDNEY — The benefits and misconceptions surrounding the Atlantica Concept were discussed at the annual general meeting of the Sydney and Area Chamber of ... Canada: Shut Down Atlantica! 2 hours ago This summer while people across the globe converge in Germany to shut down the meeting of the G8 we will be taking action in the streets of Halifax to stop the destructive policies of the proponents of Atlantica. Stop the Security and Prosperity Partnership - StopSPP.com Judicial Watch Judicial Watch is calling for complete transparency and disclosure in the matter. Follow the links below to read the recently released documents and learn more about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.