FULL BIBLE TRUTH

Important Announcement

The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More

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

Email this article
Printer friendly page

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.

Back in the day when my parents were teens, citizens of Canada could purchase land in title and deed. Now, today, the only way to purchase land is in title. There is no more ownership of Canadian land in deed.

So in truth, all my property belongs to me only in TITLE and not in DEED. Mineral rights must also be purchased independantly of the TITLE but unfortunately ALL mineral rights to all available land in CANADA have already been purchased by those in the know with prior knowledge of these changes in legislation and the remainder has been purchased by ... get this... the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. During the meetings governing the MEECH LAKE ACCORD many of these former Canadian rights were sold out at the hands of men like Ed Broadbent in formulating a Canadian constitution. One of them was the right to private ownership of property. In truth, the Canadian citizen no longer has the constitutional right to privately owned land in Canada anymore.

Texas is the only state left in the U.S.A. where a person is permitted to purchase and own allodial land and they're not exactly openly telling the people how to go about doing this either. USA is really not so far behind Canada when it comes to exploitation of its own citizens. In comparing the two countries it would seem that we do have a great deal in common afterall. Few of us can actually own our land. We are all subjects of the IMPERIAL NEW WORLD ORDER.

King George still rules America while the bastard children of a very promiscuous and apathetic Queen are far too complacent to care about any "rights and freedoms" unless the effort to care will grant them the "right" to go and sin some more. Same sex marriage suits the Canadian ELITE perfectly and it facilitates the British monarchy equally as well. This is only a small part of the agenda that includes many directives to eliminate those barbaric and archaic terms such as "husband" and "wife", and "mom", and "dad". Of course, it is expedient that the people's "right to vote" will always be protected because the masses must be led to think that they actually have a say in such matters. Nonetheless if the ELITE do not like the final outcome of the vote they can always "fix" it (just like they fixed the vote in Florida) so the minds of the masses are kept occupied with war games and sensationalized with words like "terrorism".

I would like to know how many more countries are required to be involved in the middle-east war before the planet realizes that the planet is in WORLD WAR THREE already. What more will it take?

It is said that all is fair in love and war. The sabotage of the World Trade Center and the carefully staged "near miss" at the pentagon is enough to keep the minds of the masses occupied for decades to come. King George will likely continue to get all of the support he desires from the British Monarchy. Considering that England is not so far away from Israel and these people understand that the heir to the U.S.A. MONARCHY, King George junior, has the same agenda - sovereign rulership and ownership of the people - Bible prophecy continues on it's regular course. The FALSE ZION will certainly be built with human hands, as prophecied, prior to the second coming of Christ.

Are we all ready for the citizenry of the NEW JERUSALEM that comes from on high or are we only subjects to the great lie from below? This is a question well worth considering the next time we are required to sing an anthem.

Enoch we have known eachother via internet for some time now. In fact, it has been years. I do not believe everything you state in this forum, or send me in e-mails, or post on the message boards, but I certainly do respect you. The very fact that you are even alive is a miracle from the hand of God. Surely there is a reason why you are still in this world. I will respect this.

As for the Muslim faith, I highly doubt that Mohammad was a true prophet of God for several reasons that I am not currently prepared to go into with you. You may well have met in spirit with some spirit calling themself by this name. You are certainly entitled to believe what you will. I will stay with what the scripture in the Holy Bible tells me.

That Palestine should always be protected, supported, and allowed to grow and prosper is no small matter to be ignored. Israel would do well to bear in mind that God never wanted mankind to worship a place or a geographical location but to worship Him alone:

19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

I find it interesting that Jesus used the term TRUE WORSHIPPERS rather than "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Jew" when referring to the worship of the FATHER. The trinity of these titles do not make one saved anymore than the nine billion names of God that man has so vainly invented in his imagination. If they want to worship the father in spirit and in truth they must first become true worshippers -- not MUSLIMS, not JEWS, not CHRISTIANS. These are three man-made terms that have torn humanity for a millennium and have caused all of humanity more sorrow and grief than anything else in the history of mankind.

For me, there is no playing the odds. My life is too short for this and I don't have time for such menial entertainment. I need not play the odds to know that Muhammed was a false prophet. The Holy Bible makes this clear enough. So the Muslims can gnash on me all they wish just because I do not worship their prophet as they do or bow down to kiss stones as they do. I do not worship idols as their own prophet did. Neither do I steep myself in the darkness of the talmud and the kabalah because these are the books of Satan. When I was once a younger and much more foolish man I read such literature.

A true Jew is a true worshipper and there aren't many of them left alive in Israel. Most of the people living in what is Israel today, that call themselves Jews, are mostly liars and victims of deception. Do they worship the father in spirit and in truth? I think not.

I don't kiss crucifixes and I don't bow down to idols. I don't pray to Mary. "Christianity" as defined by the world is only another dark lie generated by the devil. You and I both know this. You know that if the world should choose to call us "Christians" then we should not be ashamed of this. I am not ashamed of the name of Christ. This is a name that will suffer more abuse and false representation than all the rest of the names of religious leaders combined. My purpose is to be a true worshipper and to know what this means.

No, Muhammad was not a true Prophet of the God of Abraham.

He was a thief, a murderer, and a liar from the beginning.

Islam teaches that Jesus was a messenger of God, not the son of God. Muslims deny the He is Almighty God come in the flesh. (John 1:1-14, I John 4:1,2). They deny that He is divine. (Col 2:9) They deny that He died on the Cross for our sins (Most believe the Judas died in his place). They deny that He rose from the dead. (Matt 26: 28, John 19:20) They deny that He is the final, conclusive revelation of God. (Heb. 1: 1-2)

http://www.exposingsatanism.org/islam.htm

" Their only crime was that they chose to retain their fundamental human right, of choosing their own God and the religion of their ancestors. Hysterical women and children screamed as they watched their fathers, husbands and sons brutally murdered. The majority of them were savagely raped and then bundled off to be sold as 'used goods.' The prophet [Muhammad] had the husband of the Jewess Raihana Bint Amr hacked to pieces before her very eyes hours after he had murdered her father. After these atrocities he raped the mortified girl and tried to force her to convert to Islam." - creationapologetics.org http://www.creationapologetics.org/editorials/islamsmohammed.html

Here is another good one: http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/Islam.htm
Muhammad also commanded his adopted son to divorce his wife so that he, Muhammad, could marry her. (Sura 33:36-38)

Muhammad was a dirty, rotten, filthy, stinking sinner who told his people that a man could only have four wives, while he, himself, had twenty. Some were only little girls - not women - not even past the flower of their virginity. Mohammed made "wives" of this age. I have noticed that many Muslim people try to justify these facts (few deny it) by saying that Mohammed married at the age of 25 to a woman nearly twice his age and lived monogamously until she died. So what? He married the daughter of a rich merchant and he rode off on raiding parties he prospered at the loss of others and ground in the faces of the poor and destitute. He was worse than Hitler. Hitler made no such claim to the Holy Ghost. Hitler did not consider himself to be the Great Comforter. Mohammed said that he, himself, was the Holy Ghost, promised by Jesus to come. This is utter blasphemy.

How is it that just because Mohammed had a better 'track record' than an evil king that this should make him a holy man? Is it because the money Mohammed stole from the poor justified him of his "wives" any more than an evil king? Mohammed didn't prophecy a single thing and he only made one documented prediction that even resembled prophecy. So why is he a "holy" man? Because, say the Muslims, (who don't want to know the truth about the little girls he slept with) Mohammed is the Great Comforter that Jesus promised he would send. Uh-huh. I don't take much comfort in the knowledge that Mohammed commited blasphemous acts with his nearly two dozen "wives" either. One was only six years old. I will spare you the details. Look it up for yourself if you have the stomach for it.

http://www.creationapologetics.org/editorials/islamsmohammed.html

Sura 4:24

"And all married women are forbidden unto you EXCEPT those captives whom your right hand possesses. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that you seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery..."

In short, allah the all merciful is affirming that any non-Muslim woman is fair game to rape provided she is "captured" first -"..lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned..."- how divine!

"Kill the Mushrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush..." Sura 9:5. Also see Sura 9:29.

But the Only Wise Allah says: The words of the wicked are to lie in wait for blood: but the mouth of the upright shall deliver them. - Proverbs 12:6

Sura 3:47 - She (Mary) said: My Lord! when shall there be a son (born) to I me, and man has not touched me? He said: Even so, Allah creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it, Be, and it is. WHY THEN, DO THE MUSLIMS NOT BELIEVE THEIR OWN BOOK: Q'RAN?

A: BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE A FALSE PROPHET.

muslim hand salutes

ZIEG HEIL!

woman to be stoned by Muslims

Preparation for the stoning.

Where is the Adulterer? (Probably the guy with the shovel.)

BURY HER LIKE A GOOD MUSLIM.

Ashoura holiday

Obviously the Muslims have not yet learned that Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice already. (See: Ashoura)

* Our government is now blaming Islamic terrorists for the heinous crimes of 9/11/2001. Because of the immense, intimidating power of the Islamic world, our media is allowing Muslim clerics a platform to say that what happened 9/11/2001 has no basis in Islam. (They never do this for pro-life groups when an abortion clinic is bombed!) To find the truth, one only has to turn to the Holy Book of Islam, the Qur'an (or Koran). Terrorism is a logical outcome of putting the Qur'an into practice. The Qur'an promotes permanent struggle against non-Muslims - or at least until non-Muslims are converted to Islam, subjected to Islamic authority, or killed. Here is a listing of relevant verses: Islam promises hell to non-Muslims 3:85, 4:56, 5:37, 5:72, 8:55, 9:28,15:2,21:98-100,22:19-22,22:56-57,25:17-19,25:55,29:53-55,31:13,66:9,68:10-13,72:14- 15, Islam warms against mixing with non-Muslims 2:21,3:28,3:118,5:51,5:144,9:7,9:28,58:23,60:4. Islam calls on Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims 2:191, 2:193, 4:66, 4:84, 5:33, 8:12, 8:15-18, 8:39, 8:59-60, 8:65, 9:2-3, 9:5, 9:14, 9:29, 9:39, 9:73, 9:111, 9:123, 25:52, 37:22-23, 47:4-5, 48:29, 69:30-37. Islam encourages war against the non-Muslims by glorifying it 2:216, 9:41, 49:15, or by promising lust in paradise to the Shaheeds who die in such a war 3:142,3:157-158,9:20--21.

* http://www.crossroad.to/text/responses/Islam.htm

As far as Allah and the Qur'an are concerned, the only true prophets are those related to Isaac (Ishaq) or Jacob (Yaqoub); yet Muhammad, according to Muslim tradition, is related to Ishmael and not Isaac or Jacob. How then can Muhammad ever be a prophet? Sura 29:27

A: Because Muhammad is a FALSE prophet. (Emphasis on the word FALSE.)

The Muslim religion states that Muhammad is also the Holy Ghost.

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26).

Muslims will tell you that this "Comfortor"... is Muhammad.

STOP

How many lies must we forgive before we must admit that the Muslim religion is false? I readily forgive the ignorant Muslim believer because he does not know the truth. The true Jew is without excuse. The true Jew knows what is written in Isaiah. The true Jew knows JESUS is the LORD of Lords or he is not a Jew, but a liar. Jesus said that salvation is of the Jews. So any "Jew" who does not know how to be saved is not a Jew but is a liar because he says he is a Jew and does not know WHO SALVATION is!

If he were truly a Jew, he would know Jesus. He would know his MESSIAH. He would know Jesus said:

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? John 14:7-9

Today, there are millions of so-called "christians" who still do not see what is before their very eyes whether it is written in black and white or signed, sealed, and delivered in His blood. A true Jew knows that ONLY YHWH can be MESSIAH. I want you, the reader, to linger on this... meditate on it ... Why would only YHWH be SAVIOUR? YHWH said that HE would not give HIS glory to another. YHWH said that HE ALONE would bring HIS people to HIM with HIS OWN ARM! The book of Isaiah sits in Israel for all to read and yet they are blind. JESUS is God ALMIGHTY. If you cannot speak English and you call Him Yeshua I have no quarrel - in my tongue, He is Jesus; and Jesus knows WHO HE IS in my heart.

So you see? Jews, Christians, Muslims and all those who would proudly (and falsely) call themselves by these names)... they all hate God, they are all liars. Just calling one's self by these silly titles and getting religiously fanatical does not make anyone a TRUE WORSHIPPER any more than putting on a band-aid makes one a brain surgeon.

Just because you would call yourself a "Jew" this does not give you the NAME of GOD. Remember: Just because you call yourself a Muslim (submitter) does not give you the NAME of GOD. Just because you call yourself a Christian does not mean that you have JESUS NAME. Until you have tasted of the heavenly gift.. until you are filled with the HOLY RUACH... until you have been adopted by HIM, even JESUS, then you are of your father, the devil, and you will continue to do the devil's work. Oh. Jesus has told me to tell you that "Yeshua" is acceptable as HIS NAME and that even the English speaking people may use it in prayer and worship if they truly know HIM. JESUS IS GOD, VERY GOD. THERE IS NO OTHER GOD BUT GOD.

SUBMIT to JESUS & REPENT

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. (Acts Two)

WHAT SHALL WE DO?

IS THIS PROMISE ONLY TO THE "CHOSEN FEW"??? Or is it to "as many as the LORD our God shall call"?

Time is ticking... not much sand left in the hour glass... what shall we do?

Important Announcement The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
FULL BIBLE TRUTH	[email protected]