Update on Con Con Resolutions at End of 2017 Session!

A quick review of SJR 9, SJR 7, AND SJR 2
 

Warning Legislators: None of these original Con Con bills should have ever been resurrected!  It’s too risky! The stunt used to resurrect these bills was confusing, and we believe it was meant to be so!  SJR 9 was changed from Method 2 (Con-Con) to Method 1 (Congress) of Article V of the U.S. Constitution. It’s very important that you look at these bills very carefully AFTER they’re amended, and read the wording.  Any legislation that makes an application to Congress for an Article V convention should be VOTED DOWN!  We understand that these are the last few days of the legislative session, but PLEASE do not rush through bills!

Example of Method 1 (Congress proposes Amendment to Constitution):

URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION  

Example of Method 2 (Calls for a Con-Con):

AN APPLICATION TO CONGRESS TO CALL A CONVENTION FOR PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 

• SJR 9 (“Right to Life” – Passed) has been amended from using the treacherous  Method 2 to using Method 1 of Article V of the U.S. Constitution. (That was Senator Rapert’s only way to get it done: the old fashioned way – the way James Madison always advised – and to ask Congress to propose it.) So, DO NOT PANIC! Method 1 does NOT call for a convention.

Method 1:  Used by Congress to propose single amendments  - A request from the states using this method is not binding on Congress, and the states are wasting their time.

- New Amendment for SJR 9 by Rep. Bob Ballinger for Sen. Jason Rapert (which looks like an attempt for Sen. Rapert to save face so he can say that his bill “passed”): 

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2017/2017R/Amendments/SJR9-H1.pdf

Method 2:  Not Acceptable; used by states to apply for convention - Old Amendment for SJR 9 by Sen. Jason Rapert:

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2017/2017R/Amendments/SJR9-S1.pdf

Bill Status History for SJR 9

• SJR 7 (“Applying for Article V Convention” – Failed, so far) appears to have been amended from using the treacherous Method 2 to using Method 1 of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.  (That was Senator Rapert’s only way to get it done: the old fashioned way – the way James Madison always advised – and to ask Congress to propose it.) So, DO NOT PANIC! Method 1 does NOT call for a convention. **SJR 7 is on the agenda for the House State Agencies committee at 8:30 a.m. on Weds, March 29, 2017. If it passes, they can bring it immediately to the House floor. 
  LEGISLATORS, we urge you to use caution!

Method 1:  Used by Congress to propose single amendments  - A request from the states using this method is not binding on Congress, and the states are wasting their time.

- New Amendment for SJR 7 by Rep. Mickey Gates for Sen. Jason Rapert (which isn’t even on the legislator site yet) This looks like an attempt for Sen. Rapert to save face so he can say that his bill “passed”: 

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2017/2017R/Amendments/SJR7-H1.pdf

Method 2:  Not Acceptable; used by states to apply for convention - Old Amendment for SJR 7 by Sen. Jason Rapert:

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2017/2017R/Amendments/sjr7-S1.pdf

Bill Status History for SJR 7

• SJR 2 (“Applying for Article V Convention” – Failed entirely this session) – presently using the treacherous Method 2 of Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Method 2 calls for a Convention. Very dangerous! 

SJR 2 Failed to pass on 3/28/2017. The House Vote for SJR 2 was 41 Yeas, 38 Nays, 20 Non Voting and 1 Present. For the bill to pass they needed a majority which would have been 51 Yeas.  

SJR 2 did pass in the Senate on 3/21/2017 after the second try. The Senate Vote on the second try of SJR 2 was 19 Yeas, 12 Nays, and 4 Non Voting. For a bill to pass in the Senate, it requires 18 Yeas.  The Yea Votes are the legislators voting for a Constitutional Convention a.k.a. Con-Con.

SJR 2 failed in the Senate on the first try on 1/30/2017. The Senate Vote on the first try of SJR 2 was  13 Yeas, 17 Nays, and 4 Non Voting. For a bill to pass in the Senate, it requires 18 Yeas.

Bill Status History for SJR 2

Hopefully, session will be over soon! All kinds of stunts are being pulled at the Capitol, but we will have to address that later. 

Article V of the U.S. Constitution has two methods for amending the Constitution, Method 1 and Method 2, which are explained below.

Q: Which method was used for our existing 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution?

A: The first method was used for all 27 amendments including the Bill of Rights which were introduced into Congress by James Madison.

Method 1 (This is the only safe way to amend the Constitution.)

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, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states,… 

Method 1: allows Congress whenever ⅔ of both houses deem it necessary to propose amendments to the Constitution. The amendment proposed by Congress still has to be ratified by ¾ of the States.

SJR 9 did a bait and switch. The original SJR 9 used Method 2 to apply for a convention and then switched to Method 1 with this latest amendment to have Congress propose amendments to the Constitution. Could the sponsor, Senator Jason Rapert, just have been interested in getting SJR 9 passed regardless of the outcome? Using Method 1 to pass SJR 9 puts no requirements on Congress and is just a waste of time. Congress isn’t listening or obeying the Constitution today, so why would we expect them to do any different.

Method 2:  This is very dangerous and should NEVER be attempted! This method puts our Constitution at risk and allows for a possible Runaway Convention. Remember the George Soros agenda and “The Constitution in 2020” book; plus Hundreds of progressive (Marxist) groups listed here.

…or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Method 2 allows for a call for a convention whenever ⅔ of the States make application. This treacherous method allows for the progressives like George Soros to get involved.  (SJR 2, the original SJR 7 and the original SJR 9 used this unacceptable method). All the other Article V pieces of Arkansas legislation are using Method 2, which should never be attempted. 

Remember, we felt they could have done something bizarre to the legislation like change or mark out wording in SJR 9 at the last minute in this crazy session!

Final Comments:

Q: Is there a difference between a constitutional convention, con con, or Article V convention?

A: These names have been used interchangeably for over 50 years.

Q: Why do they want an Article V convention?

A: The only way to get rid of our existing Constitution AND Bill of Rights is to have an Article V convention where they can re-write our Constitution. Jordan Sillars, Communications Director for Michael Farris’ “Convention of States,” said:

“I think the majority of Americans are too lazy to elect honest politicians. But I think some men and women could be found who are morally and intellectually capable of re-writing the Constitution…”.

We want to thank everyone who participated in defeating these bad resolutions applying for a convention!

As always, you can find our email articles posted on our website: SecureArkansas.com.  The Search box is a handy tool.  For more information about a topic, just type it into the Search box on our website, and click Enter!

And remember:

Securing the blessings of liberty,
 

Secure Arkansas
securetherepublic.com/arkansas
[email protected]

Disclaimer:

Legal Advice is Not Provided

The material in our emails/alerts and on our websites is only intended to provide general information and comment to the public. We make an effort to ensure that the information found in our emails/alerts and on our websites is accurate and timely, but we can’t and don’t guarantee that. Nor do we guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information contained on websites to which our websites or emails provide links.

Information found in our emails/alerts and on our websites should not be taken as legal advice. Legal matters can be complicated. For assistance with a specific legal problem or question, please contact a knowledgeable lawyer for assistance.