“Critical Disclosure” host James “Jim” White is wondering whether a Constitutional Convention to amend the U.S. Constitution would be a clean one or not. Constitutional expert Robert Brown is more succinct, saying there’s no need to amend the Constitution at all.
Brown noted that if U.S. officials and citizens were to strictly obey the Constitution as written, the government would be far less abusive and intrusive on people’s daily lives. “That alone would just solve so much of the problems we’re facing as a nation today,” Brown said.
During the Oct. 10 edition of his Brighteon.TV program, White told Brown that the Constitution has been under attack for a long time.
The enemies are zeroing in on the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, press freedom, right to assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. White added that they are also going after the Second Amendment, which enshrines the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
In September, former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) pointed out in an op-ed that Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution allows for its amendment. According to the erstwhile lawmaker, this could be done either through amendments being proposed by two-thirds of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states or the the establishment of a new constitutional convention.
Feingold explained that in order to hold a new convention, 34 state legislatures – two-thirds of the total – must apply to gather. Lawmakers would have broad freedom to change the Constitution however they see fit, but three-quarters of the states would have to ratify the proposed amendments.
Meanwhile, White pointed out that Democrats want to legislate more gun laws even though such laws had already been in place since the Constitution was drafted.
“Follow the ones that are in place now for crying out loud. Follow those, and you wouldn’t have to create a new one. It’s the same thing,” White said.
Meeting for a Constitutional Convention would mean that lawmakers are allowed to propose anything, including a completely new constitution. The Convention of the States, on the other hand, is limited to a specific subject.
However, as White pointed out, there is really no difference between the two.
In 1787, when the original Constitution was written, the government replaced the Articles of Confederation. Back then, the presiding government was not given the authority to create a completely new constitution either. (Related: Influential writer accuses globalists of trying to get rid of the Constitution – Brighteon.TV.)
“They were given the authority to remedy the defects, to revise the Articles of Confederation and so on. But it was called a convention with limited authority, and they transform themselves into an unlimited convention,” Brown pointed out.
“If the seven-day convention had limits placed upon it, which they ignored and did so legitimately, then, of course, the same thing could happen today,” he said. “We could just the same have a convention with the limited authority given to them, they take on more authority than they were given and create, just like they did in 1787.”
Currently, Republicans will need to control only four more states to reach the threshold necessary to call a second constitutional convention. If right-wing advocates for a new convention like the Convention of States Project and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) get their way, it would be possible for the Republicans to change the Constitution as they see fit.
Because there is nothing in the Constitution about how delegates would be selected or apportioned, or how amendments would be proposed or agreed upon, there is little useful historical precedent that could lead to insight into these questions.
This could further mean that nearly any amendment could be proposed at the convention, and could give delegates enormous power to engage in political and constitutional re-drafting.
Visit BigGovernment.news for more stories like this.
Sources include:Submit a correction >>