Welcome to our website:

www.noconcon.com

 

Constitutionists United Against

a Constitutional Convention”.

 

We are opposed to any call what-so-ever

for a CONstitutional CONvention, because it

can not be limited to any single issue

and therefore there is a high risk of having our

 entire United States Constitution re-written at a

run-a-way Constitutional Convention!

 

 

When ever new amendments to our Constitution

are proposed, we always ask the question:

 

“Is this going to lead to a “Con-Con”?"

(CONstitutional CONvention)

 

Instead, we recommend that the state legislators

of all of  the states that currently have calls for a

Constitutional Convention RECIND their states

call for a Con-Con before the required number of

states gets close enough to cause this to happen!

 

If your state has recinded its resolution that calls for a Constitutional Convention and if you have a copy of that resolution, please send it to us, so that we can post it on this website and share this information with others.  You may e-mail it to elligram@aol.com or mail it to the address below:

 

Constitutionists United Against a Constitutional Convention

P. O. Box 11117, Glendale, California 91226-7117

 

 

Warning: A New Threat to our Constitution!

 

The globalists now are trying to sneak in a "North American Union"

merger that would unite Canada, the United States and Mexico into

one country on our continent!  In order to accomplish this, they will

substitute our United States Constitution with a Constitution of the

North American Union and therefore the next Constitutional

 Convention will cause the end of the United States!

 

Therefore, we must reduce this great threat to our nation by getting

all of the rest of the States that still have "Con-Con" calls to recind

their resolutions that call for a constitutional convention, before any

new constitutional amendments are introduced!

 

If you do not believe that this is not a threat

to our Nation's Soveriegnty, Security and

Survival, please watch this video:

See and hear Lou Dobbs on TV about President Bush's

Treasonous and Impeachable Conspiratorial Acts to give

 away the United States of America to Mexico & Canada !

 

 

We must STOP the TREASON NOW!

before we lose everything in 2010!

A Virginia State Senator will introduce

a "Con-Con" Bill this month, unless we

convince him: "NOT to" immediately! and BEFORE it is too late!

Please click on to this link and watch the Video:

http://www.jbs.org/index.php/freedom-campaign/4282

Also print out this information and FAX or send it to your friends in Virginia, NOW!

This link also contains the name of the Virginia State Senator who must be told that: "We OPPOSE this act so strongly that we consider this to be an unacceptable ACT OF TREASON that is worthy of having him RECALLED from office and permanently END his political career forever! We will not wait until the next election to vote against him and that: "NO Democrat is worse than a "TRAITOR" to our Constitution!"

Please click onto this link to view this revealing video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-vda1KRF75M&mode=related&search= 

 

 

Many organizations have opposed resolutions that call for a

Constitutional Convention for the simple reason; that it can

NOT be limited to any one single issue

and therefore the risk of having a  run-away

“Constitutional Convention”  would very likely happen!

 

 

Here is a partial list of some of the organizations

 that have opposed the Con-Con:

 

Eagle Forum, Daughters of the American Revolution, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association, United Republicans of California, California Democratic Party, The American Independent Party, National Association to Keep and Bear Arms, The Constitution Party, American Pistol and Rifle Association, Pro-America, The John Birch Society, The Second Amendment Committee of Hanford, California and Constitutionists United Against a Constitutional Convention.

 

Prominent Constitutional Scholars and

Former Justices of The U.S. Supreme Court:

 

Harvard University Professor Lawrence Tribe, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger. Commission on the Bicentennial of the U. S. Constitution, U.S Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg (appointed by President John F. Kennedy), Phyllis Schlafly, founder and president of the Eagle Forum, Howard Phillips, founder and chairman of the Conservative Caucus, and Dr. Robert Morris, former president of the Universities of Dallas and Plano.

 

Beware of any new proposed amendments
to our United States Constitution!

 

Conspirators, globalists and traitors who hate our system of limited government under our United States Constitution and who want to scrap our nations sovereignty for “interdependence” under a United Nations world government will use any trick possible to get Americans to fall for the false idea that: “We can solve any problem by having a constitutional convention, because it can be limited to just that one particular issue”.  That premise is completely false!  If they will lie about this fact, it should be obvious that they will lie about anything, including a complete change of our U.S. Constitution or an entirely new constitution!

 
If your state has recinded its resolution that calls for a Constitutional Convention and if you have a copy of that resolution, please send it to us, so that we can post it on this website and share this information with others.  You may e-mail it to elligram@aol.com or mail it to the address below:

 

 

Constitutionists United Against a Constitutional Convention

P. O. Box 11117, Glendale, California 91226-7117

 

 

 

 

Every Political Party Should Oppose a

Constitutional Convention in their Platform

 

 

If you are a member of your state party's Platform Committee or if you

know someone who is, we suggest that you introduce or have a

member introduce a plank to oppose a "Con-Con" in your state

party's platform and next in your party's national platform.

 

 

This is the "No Con-Con" plank of the Constitution Party:

 

Constitutional Convention

We affirm the original text of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We affirm that the nation's Charter, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution contain the foundational law of the federal union. We condemn, therefore, all legislative, executive, and judicial action that departs from the texts and intent of the Charter and the Constitution and their original meaning.

We oppose any attempt to call for a Constitutional convention, for any purpose whatsoever, because it cannot be limited to any single issue, and such convention could seriously erode our Constitutionally protected unalienable rights.

 

 

Great News!  5 years ago (2004) 3 more states,

(Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia) passed

resolutions to recind their previous call for

a constitutional convention! 

 

 

 We would like to receive e-mails of

 the wording of these resolutions, so that we

can post it on this website and get all of

 the remaining "con-con" resolution

 states to adopt similar resolutions!

 

 

We need to get this information posted BEFORE any new

Constitutional Amendments are introduced!

 

 

Please contact your legislator immediately and tell them to

e-mail the wording of their resolution to us that recinded their

States call for a Constitutional Convention!

 

elligram@aol.com

 

 

It is NEVER TOO SOON, but it can become TOO LATE!

 

As often said: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

 

 

 It has come to our attention that the State of Missouri now has a resolution to recind their state's previous call for a Constitutional Convention. If you have the wording of this, please send this to me at elligram@aol.com, so that I can post this on our website and of course we want to have every state that has a con-con resolution to recind their state's con-con resolution.

Legislators from these states can e-mail these resolutions to me at

 

elligram@aol.com

 

and it will be greatly appreciated by all who love our

 constitutional limited government freedoms!

 

The "con-con" will no longer be a threat, if every

 state recinds their "con-con" resolutions!

 

 

 

To learn more about the great dangers of having a

CONstitutional CONvention, please click onto this link:

 

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/

 

 Here is the Resolution to Recind the State of Georgia's previous Con-Con Resolution: House Resolution 1343 (AS PASSED IN HOUSE AND SENATE) By: Representatives Coan of the 67th, Post 1, Westmoreland of the 86th, Brooks of the 47th, Moraitakis of the 42nd, Post 4, Jamieson of the 22nd, and others A RESOLUTION Rescinding, repealing, canceling, voiding, nullifying, and superseding any and all prior applications by the General Assembly heretofore made during any session thereof to the Congress of the United States of America to call a convention pursuant to the terms of Article V of the United States Constitution for proposing one or more amendments to that Constitution and urging the legislatures of other states to do the same; and for other purposes. WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the State of Georgia, acting with the best of intentions, has, at various times and during various sessions, previously made applications to the Congress of the United States of America to call one or more conventions to propose either a single amendment concerning a specific subject or to call a general convention to propose an unspecified and unlimited number of amendments to the United States Constitution, pursuant to the provisions of Article V thereof; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1952 Regular Session passed Resolution Act No. 53 (Ga. L. 1952, p. 472), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning treaty powers; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1952 Regular Session passed Resolution Act No. 61 (Ga. L. 1952, p. 480), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning limiting taxation; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1955 Regular Session passed Resolution Act No. 2 (Ga. L. 1955, p. 4), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning the independence of state schools; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1959 Regular Session passed Resolution Act No. 45 (Ga. L. 1959, p. 383), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning the independence of state schools; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1961 Regular Session passed Senate Resolution No. 39, applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning the authority of the Supreme Court; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1965 Regular Session passed Resolution Act No. 89 (Ga. L. 1965, p. 559), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning the independence of state schools; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1967 Regular Session passed Resolution Act No. 96 (Ga. L. 1967, p. 894), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning refunds of federal taxes to the states; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1976 Regular Session passed Resolution Act No. 93 (Ga. L. 1976, p. 184), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning a federal balanced budget; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1991 Regular Session passed House Resolution No. 105 (Ga. L. 1991, p. 2041), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution with respect to disrespectful actions involving the United States flag and the flags of the several states; and WHEREAS, former Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Warren E. Burger, former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Arthur J. Goldberg, and other leading constitutional scholars agree that such a convention may propose sweeping changes to the Constitution, any limitations or restrictions purportedly imposed by the states in applying for such a convention or conventions to the contrary notwithstanding, thereby creating an imminent peril to the well-established rights of the citizens and the duties of various levels of government; and WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States of America has been amended many times in the history of this nation and may be amended many more times without the need to resort to a constitutional convention, and has been interpreted for more than two hundred years and has been found to be a sound document which protects the lives and liberties of the citizens; and WHEREAS, there is no need for and there is in fact great danger in a new constitution or in opening the Constitution to sweeping changes, the adoption of which would only create legal chaos in this nation and only begin the process of another two centuries of litigation over its meaning and interpretation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA that the General Assembly does hereby rescind, repeal, cancel, void, nullify, and supersede, to the same effect as if they had never been passed, any and all prior applications by the General Assembly to the Congress of the United States of America to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, pursuant to the terms of Article V thereof, regardless of when and regardless of whether such applications were for a more limited convention to propose one or more amendments regarding one or more specific subjects and purposes or for a general convention to propose an unlimited number of amendments upon an unlimited number of subjects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Assembly hereby specifically repeals Resolution Act No. 53 (Ga. L. 1952, p. 472), passed during the 1952 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 61 (Ga. L. 1952, p. 480), passed during the 1952 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 2 (Ga. L. 1955, p. 4), passed during the 1955 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 45 (Ga. L. 1959, p. 383), passed during the 1959 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Senate Resolution No. 39, passed during the 1961 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 89 (Ga. L. 1965, p. 559), passed during the 1965 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 96 (Ga. L. 1967, p. 894), passed during the 1967 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 93 (Ga. L. 1976, p. 184), passed during the 1976 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; and House Resolution No. 105 (Ga. L. 1991, p. 2041), passed during the 1991 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Assembly urges the legislatures of each and every state that has applied to Congress to call a convention for either a general or limited constitutional convention to repeal and withdraw such applications. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the House of Representatives is authorized and directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to the presiding officers of both houses of the legislatures of each state in the Union, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, each member of the Georgia Congressional delegation, and the Administrator of General Services. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Georgia General Assembly Webmaster ... webmaster@legis.state.ga.us

Another great website to visit that has a lot of information

on protecting our gun rights and saving our U.S. Constitution

and "Bill of Rights" from a CONstitutional CONvention is:

 

LINK to http://www.libertygunrights.com

 

 

 

 

SCR 1022 passes in Arizona to recind Arizona’s call for a constitutional convention!

Whereas, the Legislature of the State of Arizona, acting with the best of intentions, has in the past applied to the Congress of the United States by memorial or resolution in accordance with article V, Constitution of the United States, for one or more constitutional conventions for the purpose of amending the Constitution of the United States; and

Whereas, over the course of time, the will of the people of the State of Arizona has changed with regards to Arizona’s previous calls for a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States; and

Whereas, certain persons or states have called for a constitutional convention on issues that may be directly in opposition to the will of the people of this state; and

Whereas, the people of this state do not want their previous applications for a constitutional convention to be aggregated with those calls for a convention from other states; and

Whereas, former Justice of the United States Supreme Court Warren E. Burger, former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Arthur J. Goldberg and many other leading constitutional scholars are in general agreement that a convention, notwithstanding whatever limitation might be placed on it by the call for a convention, may propose sweeping constitutional changes or, by virtue of the authority of a constitutional convention, redraft the Constitution of the United States creating an imminent peril to the well established rights of citizens and to the duties of various levels of government; and

Whereas, the Constitution of the United States has been amended many times in the history of this nation and may be amended many more times without the need to resort to a constitutional convention, and has been interpreted for more than two hundred years and found to be a sound document that protects the lives and liberties of citizens; and

Whereas, there is no need for, and in fact there is great danger in, a new constitution or in opening the Constitution of the United States to radical changes, the adoption of which could create legal chaos in this nation and begin the process of another two centuries of litigation over its meaning and interpretation; and

Whereas, changes or amendments that may be needed in the present Constitution of the United States may be proposed and enacted without resorting to a constitutional convention by using the process provided in the Constitution and previously used throughout the history of this nation.

Therefore, Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring:

1.  That the Legislature of the State of Arizona hereby repeals, rescinds, cancels, renders null and void and supersedes any and all existing applications to the Congress of the United States for a constitutional convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States for any purpose, whether limited or general.

2.  That the Legislature of the State of Arizona urges the legislature of each and every state that has applied to Congress for either a general or limited constitutional convention to repeal and rescind their applications.

3.  That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Administrator of General Services in Washington, D.C., each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona and the Secretaries of State and presiding officers of both houses of the legislatures of each state in the Union.

 

 

If your state has a resolution that calls for a "Con-Con",

then please copy, paste and forward this copy of the Arizona Resolution that recinded their "Con-Con" Resolution to the members of your state legislature.

 

 

 

 

PRINT Arizona's Recission of the"Con-Con" Resolution.  

 

 

 

HERE IS THE BILL TO RECIND THE CON-CON IN SOUTH CAROLINA:

A BILL TO REPEAL JOINT RESOLUTION 775 OF 1976 WHICH CALLED ON CONGRESS TO BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET THROUGH SUBMITTING AN APPROPRIATE AMENDMENT TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION FOR THIS PURPOSE, AND TO DISAVOW ANY OTHER CALLS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION BY ANY MEANS EXPRESSED. Whereas, the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, acting with the best of intentions, at various times and during various sessions, has previously made applications to Congress to call one or more conventions to propose either a single amendment concerning a specific subject or to call a general convention to propose an unspecified and unlimited number of amendments to the United States Constitution, pursuant to the provisions of Article V thereof; and Whereas, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Warren E. Burger, former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Arthur J. Goldberg, and other leading constitutional scholars agree that such a convention may propose sweeping changes to the Constitution, any limitations or restrictions purportedly imposed by the states in applying for such a convention or conventions to the contrary notwithstanding, thereby creating an imminent peril to the well-established rights of the citizens and the duties of various levels of government; and Whereas, the Constitution of the United States of America has been amended many times in the history of this nation and may be amended many more times, without the need to resort to a constitutional convention, and has been interpreted for more than two hundred years and has been found to be a sound document which protects the lives and liberties of the citizens; and Whereas, there is no need for, rather, there is great danger in, a new constitution or in opening the Constitution to sweeping changes, the adoption of which would only create legal chaos in this nation and only begin the process of another two centuries of litigation over its meaning and interpretation. Now, therefore, Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina: SECTION 1. Joint Resolution 775 of 1976 is repealed. SECTION 2. The General Assembly of the State of South Carolina disavows any other calls or applications, by any means expressed, including, but not limited to S.1024 of 1978, to Congress for a constitutional convention. SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor. ----XX---- This web page was last updated on January 7, 2005 at 2:38 PM

A href="http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081216.html"

Beware of any new amendments to our Constitution!

 

While I believe in the sanctity of Holy Matrimony and that marriage can only exist between a man and a women, please do not be deceived into falling for any trick that may cause us to lose our soveriegnty and Constitutional form of limited government.

 

I believe that the main reason why President Bush is promoting a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman is to trick religious conservatives into falling for a "Con-Con" (Constitutional Convention)!I

 

Now that the U.S. Senate has voted against it, Bush and his phony conservative "Con-Con" Artists) will try to achieve this by the other means: A Constitutional Convention! Then their goal to establish a "New World Order" can be achieved simply by re-writing a New Constitution that will eliminate our "Bill of Rights", our national sovereignty and by having a Constitution that is newer that the U.N. Charter and which will authorize an international socialist world government under the United Nations!

 

This can be achieved by manipulating the emotional hot buttons of fools that are not aware of such trickery! Beware of any and all constitutional amendments including a pro-life amendment because a run-away con-con will make America as we know it disappear!

 

Therefore, we must oppose this idea now, before this becomes a dangerous threat to our constitution and our constitutionally protected freedom! 

 

Sincerely yours for our Constitutional Republic,

Elliott Graham                                               

Chairman, Constitutionists United Against a Constitutional Convention

 

Important Warning About Another "CON-CON"

from 2008 Constitution Party Presidential Nominee Chuck Baldwin

Please click onto this link:http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081216.html

 

  

For information about the 3 country merger, please click on to this website:

 

                             www.elliottgraham.com

 

 

GOOD NEWS, Another State: Arkansas!,

Arkansas State Representative Hobbs introduces HCR 1022 to recind the Arkansas Con-Con Call.

Please get every State Representative and State Senator to Co-Sponsor, Support and Vote for this very important resolution!

*MBM222* 03-24-2009 09:23 MBM222

1 State of Arkansas As Engrossed: H3/24/09 2 87th General Assembly 3 Regular Session, 2009 HCR 1022 4 5 By: Representative Hobbs 6 By: Senator Altes 7 8 9 HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 10 TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION BY THE 11 GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED 12 STATES THAT IT CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 13 TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION TO 14 BALANCE THE PUBLIC DEBT. 15 16 Subtitle 17 TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION BY 18 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE CONGRESS OF 19 THE UNITED STATES THAT IT CALL A 20 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO PROPOSE AN 21 AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION TO BALANCE 22 THE PUBLIC DEBT. 23 24 25 WHEREAS, under Article V of the Constitution of the United States, 26 amendments to the Federal Constitution may be proposed by the Congress 27 whenever two-thirds of both Houses deem it necessary, or on the application 28 of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, the Congress shall 29 call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments; and 30 31 WHEREAS, by House Joint Resolution 1, adopted by the House of 32 Representatives on January 9, 1979, and adopted by the Senate on January 17, 33 1979, and again on January 22, 1979, after the previous vote was expunged, 34 the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas requested the Congress of the 35 United States to prepare and submit to the several states an amendment to the 36 Constitution of the United States requiring, in the absence of a national As Engrossed: H3/24/09 HCR1022 2 03-24-2009 09:23 MBM222 emergency, that t 1 he total of all federal appropriations made by Congress for 2 any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues 3 for that fiscal year, or alternatively, the General Assembly made application 4 and requested the Congress of the United States to call a Constitutional 5 Convention for the purpose of proposing such an amendment to the federal 6 Constitution; and 7 8 WHEREAS, many legal experts believe that a convention, notwithstanding 9 whatever limitation might be placed upon it by the call of said convention, 10 would have within the scope of its authority the complete redrafting of the 11 Constitution of the United States, thereby creating a great danger to the 12 well-established rights of our people and to the constitutional principles 13 under which we are presently governed; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States has been extensively 16 interpreted and has proven to be a basically sound document which protects 17 the freedom of all Americans; and 18 19 WHEREAS, there is no need for a new constitution, the adoption of which 20 would create legal chaos in America and only begin the process of another two 21 centuries of litigation over its interpretation by the courts; and 22 23 WHEREAS, such changes as may be needed in the present Constitution of 24 the United States may be proposed and enacted by the well-established methods 25 of amendment contained therein, 26 27 NOW THEREFORE, 28 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EIGHTY-SEVENTH GENERAL 29 ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, THE SENATE CONCURRING THEREIN: 30 31 THAT the General Assembly does hereby rescind its application to the 32 Congress of the United States made by the General Assembly in 1979 by House 33 Joint Resolution 1 pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United 34 States for the calling of a constitutional convention for any purpose, 35 limited or general. 36 As Engrossed: H3/24/09 HCR1022 3 03-24-2009 09:23 MBM222 BE IT FURTHER 1 RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be sent to the members 2 of the Arkansas Congressional Delegation, the Clerk of the United States 3 House of Representatives, and the Secretary of the United States Senate with 4 the request that this action by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas 5 be promptly published in the Congressional Record. 6 7 8 9 /s/ Hobbs 10

 

 

What will Congress Give Away Next?

By Elliott Graham, Congressional Nominee, 26th District of California

 

Remember when President Jimmy Carter, the first Trilateral Commission, U.S. President gave away our canal to the Government of Panama and we were very surprised when 68 (one more than needed) United States Senators voted to give the property of We, the American People away!

 

It was estimated that 85% of the American People were opposed to this give away, which made it most obvious that the big special interests, including the big multi-national corporations and the radical tax exempt foundations have more influence on them than do the majority of the voters!

 

Most people have been opposed to the federal income tax, the I.R.S., Illegal Immigration, Amnesty, Foreign Aid giveaways and a whole lot more, but those who have the dollars always win!

 

It is because they know that most voters and ignorant enough to keep on voting for the well financed incumbents, instead of the under financed challengers!

 

Now, we have a new threat, these well finance incumbents, especially those who are members of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or the Trilateral Commission are now planning to give away our entire nation to Canada and Mexico!

 

Of course, it won’t stop there, because, the original plan is to merge all countries in our planet into a United Nations world government!

 

So, far we have stopped them from re-writing our United States Constitution by avoiding that proposed run-away Constitutional Convention for Interdependence!

 

Now, more than ever we must: Get US Out of the United Nations and we must defeat these powerful incumbent politicians (like time bombs set to go off) before they vote to merge our 3 North American countries into a North American Union!

 

The best “ounce of prevention that is worth a pound of cure” is to vote these one world traitors out of office before this can happen!

  

PRINT above article on 3 nation merger

 

                 

To learn more about the SPP and the NUA, watch this Conservative Caucus

Video with its Founder Howard Phillips interviewing author Jerome Corsi.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cxzs46Nxohk&mode=related&search=

 

 

PRINT out our No Con Con cards, visitwebsite.htm

 

 

 

 

 

Always beware of any and all proposed

 amendments to our United States Constitution!

 

 

We predict that the politicians and the media will again appeal to the

emotional "hot buttons" of the voters by proposing an amendment to

our U.S. Constitution to deny citizenship of the "anchor babies" that

were born of illegal alien parents.   They will use this as an excuse

to have a Constitutional Convention to destroy our Constitutional

form of limited government and force us all to be "citizens of the world"!

 

 

Did you know that the law that allows babies to have automatic

 citizenship was passed by a simple act of Congress and that

no constitutional amendment is necessary, because that

legislation can also be repealed by Congress as well!

 

 

So, why doesn't our U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators

in Congress do this?   It is because they are controlled by

the special interest lobbiests and the big corporate

contributors instead of we the people!

 

 

 

Warning: Beware of Senator Orrin Hatch's "Con-Con" Tricks

 

 

The Senator from Utah who wants to have a CONstitutional CONvention is up to his usual dirty tricks again.  This time he wants to appeal to patriots who want to protect the American Flag by having a constitutional amendment to prevent flag burning. 

 

Did you know that, if your flag was eaten by moths or badly stained or torn, then the proper way to dispose of it, is to burn it privately  in your own fireplace? 

 

Would you want to put a person in jail for eliminating an unsightly or unacceptable flag?    and  Is your flag worth the risk of having our United States Constitution re-written and then lose all of our constitutional rights to a run-a-way "con-con" and to a one world socialist dictatorship!

 

 

 

 

 

Please read this very informative article from the

New American Magazine:

 

Con-con Movement Returns
by George Detweiler
September 4, 2006

Some proponents of a federal constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage are considering calling for a dangerous constitutional convention to accomplish their goal.

George Detweiler is a constitutional lawyer and former assistant attorney general for the state of Idaho.

They're baaack — those pesky advocates of a constitutional convention. Following defeat of a federal constitutional amendment in the U.S. Senate to define marriage exclusively as a union of one man and one woman, talk began to circulate favoring a constitutional convention to accomplish the task. Leading the charge by convention advocates are Princeton Professor Robby George, Chuck Donovan of the Family Research Council, Frank Cannon, and Tony Perkins. Most convention proponents operate in oblivion of the dangers inherent in the convention process. Their focus is upon the remedy they seek for the perceived need, be it a marriage amendment, a balanced federal budget, a ban on flag burning, legislative reapportionment, or other items which have appeared on the shopping list of convention advocates over the decades.

Article V of the Constitution contains the procedure for amending that document: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing Amendments."

Perils of a Constitutional Convention

Amendments are proposed either by Congress or by a convention called for that purpose by the action of two-thirds (34) of the legislatures of the states. The danger of using the latter process is that there is no effective way to control the convention once it begins its work. If a convention were called for the sole and exclusive purpose of proposing a definition-of-marriage amendment, the convention would be able to propose any kind and number of amendments it might choose; it could also utterly ignore the marriage amendment issue. Any topic would be on the table. It could change the republic into a monarchy, ridiculous as that suggestion sounds. It could formally place the United States under the total power of the UN. It could abolish the states. The only limits on the convention are in the minds of the delegates — self-restraint, which is no restraint at all. The point is universally lost on single-issue convention seekers, who fail to look, and therefore cannot see, beyond their own limited agendas.

A majority of the judges and scholars who have opined on the subject have declared that restraints and limitations contained in the resolutions of state legislatures which apply to Congress to call a convention are unenforceable and of no effect whatever. A legislative application for a convention for the sole purpose of securing a marriage amendment is treated as an application without limitation, thus ignoring the marriage amendment issue. The late Chief Justice of the United States, Warren Burger, wrote in a private letter in 1988:

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.... 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. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a Convention. In these [constitutional] Bicentennial years, we should be celebrating [the republic's] long life, not challenging its very existence.

Of like opinion was the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Arthur Goldberg, writing an op-ed piece for the Miami Herald in 1986:

A few people have asked, "Why not another constitutional convention?"

... One of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being.

Professor Christopher Brown, University of Maryland School of Law, wrote in 1991 in response to an inquiry into the effect of Article V in the context of the movement for a convention for a balanced federal budget amendment: "After 34 states have issued their call, Congress must call 'a convention for proposing amendments.' In my view the plurality of 'amendments' opens the door to constitutional change far beyond merely requiring a balanced federal budget."

Article V also requires that all amendments, whether proposed by Congress or a convention, become part of the Constitution only when ratified by three-fourths (38) of the states. Proponents of constitutional conventions point to the fact that 13 states can block bad amendments merely by withholding ratification. It is not quite that simple. First, truly bad amendments, those dismantling the Constitution and its most basic provisions, are the province of insiders — those ultimately seeking to place this nation under formal control of unelected bureaucrats and to dismantle the safeguards of liberty found in federalism and the Bill of Rights. They would use media hype and spin to its full advantage in pressing for ratification of radical amendments. Second, the ratification process is a protection against bad amendments only if the convention does not fiddle with the ratification process.

Law of the Land Ignored Once Before

A similar situation arose as America replaced the Articles of Confederation with the present Constitution. The nation technically continued to operate under the Articles of Confederation until the Constitution was ratified. Article X of the Confederation document required that all Alterations (its term for amendments) had to be ratified first by Congress and then by all of the states.

As the work of the constitutional convention of 1787 was concluded, the Founding Fathers were aware that the political climate of the day was not solidly enough behind the new Constitution to secure such unanimous approval. Their remedy was simply to ignore the law of the land — Article X of the Articles of Confederation — and provide a new plan for ratification. They added Article VII to the new Constitution, which allowed it to go into effect upon approval of nine states. Non-ratifying states were left out in the cold as individual "nations." Realizing this, the last four states ratified quickly once the first nine had done so.

The strategy worked, and we gained a superb Constitution in the process. But it was done in defiance of the existing law, which required Alterations to the Articles to be ratified by Congress and all states. What is the lesson? The rules of ratification were illegally, but effectively, changed once in our history. Can anyone confidently declare that it could never happen again?

Are There Safe and Effective Remedies?

Jurisdictions of federal courts are under the control of Congress. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution empowers Congress to provide exceptions to, and regulations of, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. All inferior federal courts are created by act of Congress, which has complete control over their jurisdictions. Congress can remove from their jurisdictions any authority to hear and determine cases involving same-sex "marriage" issues and further deny to them authority to consider cases in which a same-sex "marriage" performed in one state is denied "full faith and credit" in another state. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requires all states to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of sister states. Though the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution was written in a manner to protect a state from having another state's laws — such as a same-sex "marriage" law — forced upon it, activist courts have previously ignored the intent of the Constitution to fulfill a political agenda. By controlling the jurisdiction of the federal courts, the danger of history repeating itself is nullified.

It is not a complete remedy; individual states would remain free to allow such marriages if they choose to do so. This may not be a tolerable result for those seeking the marriage amendment constitutional convention. It does, however, provide a large measure of protection from federal intervention. Anyone interested in protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage should contact both of his U.S. senators and his congressman to ask their sponsorship and support for legislation enforcing the Article III, Section 2 power of Congress to remove the definition of marriage from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and to remove it from the jurisdictions of all other federal courts.

Additional Danger of a New Amendment

There is an additional cost to placing the definition of marriage under federal control, as a constitutional amendment would do. A disturbing trend records the steady flow of power toward the federal level at the expense of the states. As Congress, the executive branch, and the courts amass powers unto themselves, the states have shrunk in importance to Dickens-like caricatures of their former selves. A federal constitutional amendment defining marriage would transfer yet another traditional state power and prerogative into federal hands. States can ill afford such a loss and yet continue to maintain a viable level of the dual sovereignties which define federalism. The number of states which embrace same-sex "marriage" is very small, and with diligence, their citizens can reclaim exclusive traditional marriages. But once more power is lost to the federal government, it is inexorably gone.

Protection against a constitutional convention will not be gained until all existing applications calling for a convention are rescinded. It is a slow, laborious process that is accomplished state by state, yet it can and must be done.


 

 © Copyright 2005 American Opinion Publishing Incorporated
 

 

 

Now that we know about the plan to merge the United States with Mexico

and Canada, I believe that a planned run-away Constitution Convention will

be used to achieve the goals of the one world globalist traitors!

 

 

 

 

More information on the North American Union and

Things To Think About...

~~~~~

"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the

United States as our Fathers made it inviolate. The people of the

United States are the rightful masters of both Congress

and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution,

but to overthrow the men who pervert

the Constitution" ...

Abraham Lincoln 

~~~~~

Note: If you wish to add a friends name to my email list (or remove your name from my email list),

please click on the following and let me know... 

(tbtuso@msn.com)

___________________________________________________________________________

 

Are You Ready For The "North American Union"?...

  ___________________________________________________________________________

 

The Following Was Taken From...

"Pursuing the 'North American' Agenda"  

The Phyllis Schlafly Report of September 2006

(Eagle Forum)

 

The hottest issue at the grassroots is illegal immigration and what our government is not doing to stop it. The question most frequently heard is, Why doesn't the Bush Administration get it? Maybe the Bush Administration doesn't want to stop the invasion of illegal foreigners and wants to declare them all legal through amnesty lite and guest-worker proposals. Maybe the Bush Administration is pursuing a globalist agenda by means of a series of press releases (without authority from Congress or the American people). Consider this chronology...

  • On March 23, 2005, President Bush met at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, with Vicente Fox of Mexico and Paul Martin of Canada in what they called a Summit. The three heads of state then drove to Baylor University in Waco, where they issued a press release announcing an agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

See (http://usinfo.state.gov/wh/americas/mexico/trilateral_meeting.html)

See (http://www.spp.gov/)

  • On May 17, 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations issued a 59-page document outlining a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter" to achieve "the freer flow of people within North America." This document is full of language spelling out an "integrated" strategy to achieve an "open border for the movement of goods and people" within which "trade, capital, and people flow freely." The document calls for "a seamless North American market," allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access," "totalization" (the code word for putting illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system), massive U.S. foreign aid, and even "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution"...

Tying this document into the Bush-Fox-Martin March 23 Summit, the CFR stated

that the three men on that day "committed their governments" to the

North American Community goal, and assigned "working groups"

to fill in the details.

  • On June 9, 2005, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar held a friendly committee hearing that featured Task Force member Robert Pastor, a professor at American University and author of the 2001 book Toward a North American Community. He revealed further details of the plan for a "continental perimeter," including "an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure that includes new North American highways and high-speed rail corridors"...

See (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0881323284/eagleforum-20)

 

Pastor asserted that President Bush endorsed North American integration in the

Guanajuato Proposal of February 16, 2001, in which Bush and Vicente

Fox promised that "we will strive to consolidate a North American

economic community." Bush followed up on April 22, 2001 by

signing the Declaration of Quebec City in which he made

a "commitment to hemispheric integration"

  • On June 27, 2005, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff attended an SPP meeting in Ottawa, Canada, at which he said "we want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our borders." The White House issued a press release endorsing the Ottawa report and calling the meeting "an important first step in achieving the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership"
  • In July 2005, the White House let it be known that it is backing a coalition called Americans for Border and Economic Security organized by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie. Its purpose is to conduct a political-style campaign to sell the American people on a guest-worker program wrapped in a few border-security promises and financed by coalition members who each put up $50,000 to $250,000.
  • On March 31, 2006, President Bush met at Cancun, Mexico for a spring frolic with Vicente Fox and the new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Their press release celebrated what they called the first anniversary of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, and Bush demanded that Congress pass an immigration bill with a worker permit program.
  • On May 15, 2006, Bush made a nationally televised speech in which he enunciated the amazing non sequitur that we can't have border security unless we also have a "comprehensive" bill including legalization of illegals now in the United States and the admission of new so-called guest workers...

Thanks to the investigative work of Dr. Jerry Corsi, we have learned that

SPP's more than 20 working groups are already quietly operating

in the NAFTA office in the U.S. Department of Commerce,

which refuses to reveal the groups' members because,