Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution

8/12/2019 Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/working-together-to-rewrite-the-constitution 1/10

June 9, 2014

DHS & Congress in Collusion for Amnesty • Betraying Liberty With “Free Speech Zones”

$3.95

www.TheNewAmerican.com

http://www.thenewamerican.com/




by Christian Gomez

“ Perhaps … it is time to rewrite our

Constitution.” — Lawrence Lessig, 1993

Despite war, social upheaval, dem-ographic shifts, and economicups and downs, the U.S. Consti-

tution has endured for more than two cen-turies, securing the blessings of liberty for

Americans. Now, however, a new threatemerges that seeks to radically alter theConstitution under the guise of amend-ing it. Those seeking radical change to theConstitution look to co-opt it by invokingan Article V “convention for proposingamendments,” otherwise known as a con-stitutional convention.

Given out-of-control spending by Con-gress and a national debt of $17.5 trillion — and another estimated $129 trillion in

unfunded liabilities — many Americans,especially conservatives, believe that add-ing a balanced budget amendment to theConstitution would restrain federal spend-ing. Having little confidence in the abil-ity of Congress to correct these financialwoes, advocates for a balanced budgetamendment (BBA) have once more turnedtheir efforts to what the states can do, spe-cifically the Article V process.

However, conservatives seeking a con-

The deceptive Left-Right coalition to rewrite the Constitution by means of an Article V

convention threatens our personal rights and freedoms.

THE NEW AMERICAN • JuNE 9, 2014 10

CONSTITUTION



stitutional convention to propose a BBAwould be surprised to learn that others,including extreme leftists, also want aconvention to advance their own agendas, proposing radical changes with whichconservatives would vigorously disagree.Leading convention advocates from boththe Left and Right are actually working to-

gether to bring about a constitutional con-vention, even as key advocates on the Left publicly call for a “runaway” conventionin order to make multiple and far-reachingchanges to the Constitution.

Amending the ConstitutionArticle V is a one-paragraph article in theConstitution that includes two methodsfor proposing amendments. The first andonly method used so far empowers Con-

gress to propose an amendment “when-ever two thirds of the both houses shalldeem it necessary.”

The second method for proposingamendments, which has never been em- ployed since the original ConstitutionalConvention of 1787, is through a consti-tutional convention called by Congress“on the application of the legislatures oftwo thirds of the several states.” Once theapplications from 34 states are received,Congress is constitutionally bound to “calla convention for proposing amendments.”

Article V also outlines two modes ofratification. The amendments proposed,either by Congress or at a constitutionalconvention, can only become part of theConstitution once they have been “ratified

by the legislatures of three fourths of theseveral states, or by conventions in threefourths thereof, as the one or the othermode of ratification may be proposed bythe Congress.”

Back to the FutureWell-meaning conservatives who advo-cate for a constitutional convention fail

to recognize that once Congress convenesa convention it cannot be undone and no predetermined rules or limitations, adopt-ed by either Congress or the states, willhave any bearing on what the conventiondelegates may choose to do or propose. Asthe representatives of the sovereign will ofthe people-at-large in each state, conven-tion delegates would have free latitude to propose any changes they see fit, includ-ing the writing of an entirely new consti-tution, along with changes to the mode ofratification, so as to guarantee the adop-

tion of their amendments. This scenario isknown as a “runaway” convention, and itis not without historical precedent.

The Continental Congress originallytasked the delegates assembled at the

Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of1787 with “the sole and express purposeof revising the Articles of Confederation.”At the time, the Articles of Confederation(AOC) was the law of the land. ArticleXIII of the Articles of Confederation spe-cifically stipulated that “any alterations”made to them must be unanimously “con-firmed by the legislatures of every State.”

(Emphasis added.)Both of these mandates were clearlyexceeded. The delegates chose to replacethe Articles with an entirely new federalconstitution. They also altered the modeof ratification from being “confirmed bythe legislatures of every State,” in ArticleXIII of the AOC, to “the legislatures of

three fourths of the several states, or byconventions in three fourths thereof,” inArticle V of the new Constitution. (Em- phasis added.)

On September 13, 1788, with only 11 of

the 13 states having ratified the new Con-stitution, the Continental Congress passeda resolution declaring that it “had beenratified.” North Carolina and Rhode Islandhad not yet ratified and would not do sountil nearly a year and a half later. On May29, 1790, Rhode Island became the 13thand final state to ratify the Constitution.The new Constitution replacing the AOCwas adopted before being “confirmed bythe legislatures of every State,” as ArticleXIII required. With such precedent, whocan say it will not happen again?

www.TheNewAmerican.com 11

Another of Stevens’ proposals in Six Amendments is

to change the Second Amendment to read: “A well

regulated Militia, being necessary to the security

of a free State, the right of the people to keep and

bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be

infringed.” (Emphasis added.)

The miracle at Philadelphia, whichproduced one of the greatest documentsin human history, restraining the power ofthe federal government by granting it only acertain few and well-defined powers, wouldnot happen today, given the modern ageof mass media and popular democracy. Anew federal constitutional convention wouldinclude delegates from both the Left and theRight, many of whom would propose far-reaching changes to the Constitution, therebythreatening our constitutionally secured rights.





Call a ConventionFounded in 2013, Call a Con-vention is an organization whosestated purpose is to reform Wash-ington, “striking at the root of in-creasingly troubling issues whichhave plagued our federal govern-ment for decades” by way of an“Article V Amendments Conven-tion.” Call a Convention devotesits efforts to getting groups on both the Right and Left to worktogether in order to convince statelegislatures to petition Congress tocall a convention.

Point one of Call a Convention’sstrategy calls for the creation of a“non-partisan collaboration withother Article V and Amendments

groups.” Under the “About” menuitem on the Call a Convention web-site, there is an “Article V Advo-cates” webpage with the headline“The Article V Movement — Rightand Left Working Together for RealReform” (see graphic on this page).Under the headline we are told:“We are organizations and individ-uals from both the right and the leftwho recognize that Washington is broken and will not reform itself....[We] must call a Convention, and

move forward on our commonground for the good of the nation.”

Below this explanation is a listof various conservative “Article VMovement” groups, such as MarkMeckler and Michael Farris’ Conventionof States (COS), Article V Caucus (of statelegislators), American Legislative Ex-change Council (ALEC), Balanced Bud-get Amendment Task Force, and Compactfor America. Listed along with these con-servative groups are progressive liberalorganizations, such as Convention USA,

Amend America, ArticleV.org (“the Inter-Occupy Article V Work Group”), Call aConvention, and Wolf-PAC. Althoughmost of these groups claim to favor onlya “limited” convention to propose one

amendment or a few limited amendments,they are nevertheless listed on the Calla Convention website as members of amovement whose goal is “a truly open andconstructive” Article V convention.

The faces behind Call a Conventionare Lawrence Lessig, its founder; JeffMcLean, the executive director; and

Shelby Williams, who serves as the di-rector. Before becoming executive direc-tor of Call a Convention, Jeff McLeanserved as vice-president of AmericansUnited to Rebuild Democracy, which

is a nonprofit organization thatdescribes itself as “an alliance between Conservatives and Pro-gressives for fundamental elec-tion reforms including a cleanelections system, congressionalterm limits and a ban on the prac-tice of Gerrymandering.”

Leading the pack is LawrenceLessig, who founded Call a Con-vention in August 2013. Lessigholds the title of Roy L. FurmanProfessor of Law and Leadershipat Harvard Law School, and has previously taught law at the Uni-versity of Chicago and StanfordLaw School. Lessig served as anadvisor on Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, and his

name was even rumored as a pos-sible Supreme Court justice nomi-nee should Obama win the election.Lessig’s name also appeared on the2013 guest list for the BilderbergConference, where establishment bigwigs from Europe and NorthAmerica met to discuss various top-ics, including U.S. foreign policy,the EU, the promises and impactsof online education, and national-ism and populism.

Lessig emerged on the nation-

al scene following the SupremeCourt’s 2010 ruling in Citizens

United v. Federal Election Com-

mission, which allowed corpora-tions, specifically incorporated

501(c)(4) public advocacy groups, andtrade associations to make financial con-tributions to electoral races. Since then,Lessig and left-wing Article V groups,such as Move to Amend and Wolf-PAC,have taken the lead in seeking to overturnthe court’s decision by pushing for a campaign finance amendment to the Constitu-

tion that would bar all private money from political races and require elections to be publicly financed.

Another page on Call a Convention’swebsite lists the various “Amendments”they support: a Balanced Budget Amend-ment, a Campaign Finance Amendment,a National Debt Relief Amendment, TermLimits for Congress, and Term Limits forSupreme Court Justices. However, sinceCall a Convention’s goal is “a truly openand constructive” convention, the listing of

THE NEW AMERICAN • JuNE 9, 2014 12

Levinson contends that “the Constitution is both

insufficiently democratic, … and significantly

dysfunctional.” Levinson writes, “We should no longer

express our blind devotion to it.”

The Article V Movement page (above) on the “Call aConvention” website boasts the names of various pro-ArticleV convention groups and individuals from both the Right andLeft that are “Working Together for Real Reform.”

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_10/ArticleV.org

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_10/ArticleV.org



these amendments is likely only a meanstoward their ultimate objective of propos-ing radical rewrites to the Constitution.

In his 2011 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress — and a Plan

to Stop It , Lessig discussed the adverseimplications to “democracy” from the Su- preme Court’s ruling in the Citizens Unit-

ed case. Unsurprisingly, Chapter 20 of the book outlined a constitutional conventionas the necessary solution. On page 293,Lessig stressed the need for a conventionon the basis of the fundamentally transfor-mative changes that only a constitutionalconvention could bring about: “Eventhough it has never happened, however, aconstitutional convention is the one final

plausible strategy for forcing fundamen-

tal reform onto our Congress.” (Emphasis

added.) On the same page, Lessig contin-ued to make his desire for a broad constitu-tional convention clear when he explainedthat going through Congress to proposeamendments would fall short of resultingin the type of “fundamental reform” onlyachievable through a convention:

It’s going to be easier to organizemovements within the states to de-mand fundamental reform than itwill be to organize Congress to votefor any particular amendment to the

Constitution to effect that reform.And more important, it’s going to be much easier to get a conversationabout fundamental reform going inthe context of a call for a conven-tion than it will be through any other plausible political means. The rea-son is an important strategic oppor-

tunity that a call for a convention

would offer and that a demand foran amendment would not: different

souls with different objectives could

agree on the need for a conventionwithout agreeing on the particular

proposals that a convention should

recommend. Some might want termlimits. Some might want to abolishthe Electoral College, or ban po-litical gerrymandering. And some

might want to demand a systemfor funding elections that restoresintegrity and independence to Con-gress (me!).All of these different souls could agreeat least on the need to create the platform upon which their different ideas

could be debated. The platform is the

convention. [Emphasis added.]

Call a Convention’s founder places greateremphasis and importance on the “plat-form” than on any particular amendments.

The five amendments listed on Call a Con-vention’s website are merely a catalyst ofthe “different ideas” necessary to convince both the Right and the Left to come to-gether in support of a convention, whosetrue purpose is to debate and propose fun-damental changes to the Constitution.

Co-opting the RightSince the mid 1970s, conservative at-tempts at a constitutional conventionhave been primarily focused on add-ing a balanced budget amendment to theConstitution. One of the groups pushinghard for a BBA via an Article V conven-tion today is Compact for America. TheCompact for America (CFA) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with an ambi-tious plan that calls for the creation of an

interstate compact, made up of 38 states(the minimum required number of states toratify an amendment to the Constitution),to petition Congress to call an Article Vconvention for proposing a balanced bud-get amendment, which would also be “pre-drafted” and “pre-ratified” within the 38states’ initial applications.

CFA’s plan calls for designating thegovernor of each state to serve as his orher state’s official delegate to the conven-tion. The CFA is the brainchild of NickDranias, the director of policy and con-

stitutional government for the GoldwaterInstitute. Among those on CFA’s advisorycouncil is Lawrence Lessig.

Another organization listed on Call aConvention’s “Article V Movement” pageis Convention of States (COS), which isa project of Mark Meckler’s Citizens forSelf-Governance (CSG). Convention ofStates encourages state legislatures to in-troduce and pass resolutions applying toCongress to call a convention of the statesin order to propose “amendments that im- pose fiscal restraints on the federal gov-

ernment, limit the power and jurisdictionof the federal government, and limit theterms of office for its officials.”

13 Call 1-800-727-TRUE to subscribe today!

Left and Right working together to rewritethe Constitution: On September 24-25,2011, Lawrence Lessig (left) and MarkMeckler cohosted the Harvard Conferenceon the Constitutional Convention, which wasintended to bring both the Left and Righttogether to work toward a constitutionalconvention. A

P I m a g e s



Before establishing Citizens for Self-Governance in 2012, Mark Meckler wasthe co-founder and national coordina-tor for Tea Party Patriots. In 2011, bothMeckler and Lessig attended the Confer-ence on the Constitutional Convention(ConConCon), held at Harvard UniversitySeptember 24-25, 2011. Meckler cohostedthe event with Lessig, which, like Call aConvention, intended to bring both theRight and Left together to work toward anew constitutional convention. Also in at-tendance at the Harvard ConConCon was Nick Dranias of CFA.

As recently as March 21, 2014, bothLessig and Meckler spoke at the sameevent, this time at the Citizen Univer-sity’s (motto: “Let’s Do Democracy”)Annual National Conference in Seattle;

Lessig’s topic was “How to Start a Re- bellion,” featuring “bot tom up changeand passionate cross-partisan politicalrejuvenation.” Lessig’s connection withCFA and Mark Meckler is not so much anendorsement for a BBA or limited gov-ernment as it is an opportunity for Lessigto work alongside conservatives towardthe common goal of a constitutional con-vention. The Right is being used to helpfacilitate the aspiration of Lessig and oth-ers for a convention to make far-reachingchanges to the Constitution.

Working With the LeftFollowing the Supreme Court’s decisionin the Citizens United case, the Left madecampaign finance reform the rallying cryfor their efforts to amend the Constitution.Cenk Uygur, the host and producer of The

Young Turks, has been a strong supporterfor campaign finance reform followingthe court’s ruling. Uygur also attended theHarvard ConConCon, where he becameconvinced that the only recourse for campaign finance reform is an Article V con-stitutional convention.

In November 2011, Uygur foundedWolf-PAC with the stated aim to “restoretrue, representative democracy in theUnited States by pressuring our State Rep-resentatives to pass a much needed 28thAmendment to our Constitution which

would end corporate personhood and pub-licly finance all elections in our country.”The text of Wolf-PAC’s proposed “28thAmendment” reads:

Corporations are not people. Theyhave none of the Constitutional rightsof human beings. Corporations arenot allowed to give money to any politician directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 fromany person or entity. All electionsmust be publicly financed.

Since Wolf-PAC’s creation, both Uygur andLessig have toured the country making ap- pearances together encouraging people andstate legislators to support and pass ArticleV applications for a convention to proposethis “28th Amendment.” Lessig and Uygurare not the only notable personalities on theLeft who would welcome an Article V con-vention to overturn the Supreme Court’s

Citizens United ruling.In his newest book, Six Amendments:

How and Why We Should Change the

Constitution (2014), former SupremeCourt Associate Justice John Paul Ste-vens, who wrote the dissenting opinionin the Supreme Court’s Citizens United case, proposes adding the following 43words to amend the First Amendment ofthe Constitution:

Neither the First Amendment norany other provision of this Constitu-tion shall be construed to prohibit theCongress or any state from imposingreasonable limits on the amount ofmoney that candidates for public of-fice, or their supporters, may spend inelection campaigns.

Another of Stevens’ proposals in Six

Amendments is to change the SecondAmendment to read: “A well regulated

Militia, being necessary to the securityof a free State, the right of the people tokeep and bear Arms when serving in the

militia shall not be infringed.” (Emphasisadded.) The addition of these five wordsessentially allows for the criminalizationand disarming of homeowners and law-abiding citizens.

Justice Stevens is not alone in seekingto alter the Second Amendment. Also inattendance at the Harvard ConConConwas then-Texas Wesleyan Law SchoolProfessor Mary Penrose, who currently

teaches at Texas A&M University Schoolof Law. Speaking at the 2013 UConnSchool of Law Second AmendmentSymposium, Penrose said gun violencerequired “drastic measures” and affirmedthat “there is not a single amendment thatis absolute … no constitutional right issacred.” She continued, “It’s time today,in our drastic measures, to repeal and re- place that Second Amendment.” Halfwaythrough her talk she stated, “I’m in favorof redrafting the entire Constitution.”

14 THE NEW AMERICAN • JuNE 9, 2014

CONSTITUTION

Left-wing Article V convention proponent: Cenk Uygur (left), the host and producer of The YoungTurks , founded Wolf-PAC to overturn the 2010 Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision by way ofan Article V constitutional convention. So far this year, 14 state legislatures have introduced Wolf-PAC resolutions. Vermont became the first state to approve a Wolf-PAC resolution in March.

A P I m a g e s



Before leaving the podiumPenrose concluded, “My so-lution goes through the Ar-ticle V process … throughthe states model.”

Also listed on Call a Con-vention’s “Article V Move-ment” page is ConventionUSA. Convention USAis a nonprofit corporationthat was founded by ChiefJustice of the MichiganSupreme Court Thomas E.Brennan and several of hisclose associates. Conven-tion USA describes itself asan “interactive, virtual con-vention being conducted onthe Internet for the purpose

of proposing amendmentsto the Constitution of theUnited States in the manner provided for in Article V ofthe federal constitution.”Anyone can sign up on itswebsite as a “delegate” to participate in the onl ine“convention” to propose anddebate amendments desiredto be proposed and debatedat a real constitutional con-vention. This virtual con-

vention will “adjourn sinedie when the United StatesCongress calls a convention pursuant to Article V,” Con-vention USA’s website states. Their goalis to “generate a groundswell of publicsupport for an Article V convention, andforce Congress to call the convention.”

Convention USA’s advisory board in-cludes Lawrence Lessig. Other membersof the advisory board have proposed theirown amendments, which would funda-mentally transform the Constitution.

Endgame: Constitutional RewriteAmong the names listed on ConventionUSA’s advisory board is University ofTexas Law School Professor SanfordLevinson. On page nine of Levinson’s book Our Undemocratic Constitution:

Where the Constitution Goes Wrong

(And How We the People Can Correct It) (2006), he contends that “the Constitu-tion is both insufficiently democratic, …

and significantly dysfunctional.” Levin-

son writes, “We should no longer expressour blind devotion to it.” He invites thereader to answer five questions in orderto “scrutinize the adequacy of today’sConstitution.” The first question Levin-son asks is:

Even if you support having a Senatein addition to the House of Represen-

tatives, do you support as well givingWyoming the same number of votesas California, which has roughly sev-enty times the population?

Levinson’s final question hints at wantingto lower the threshold of the required number of states to ratify an amendment:

Do you support the ability of thirteenlegislative houses in as many states to block constitutional amendments de-

sired by the overwhelmingmajority of Americans aswell as, possibly, eighty-six out of the ninety-ninelegislative houses in theAmerican states?

On page 11, Levinson makesthe following proposal to ad-dress these questions:

Shall Congress call aconstitutional conventionempowered to considerthe adequacy of the Con-stitution and, if thoughtnecessary, to draft a new

constitution that, uponcompletion, will be sub-

mitted to the electoratefor its approval or disapproval by majority vote?Unless and until a new

constitution gains popular

approval, the current Con- stitution will continue in

place. [Emphasis added.]

Initially, Levinson sought acitizens-led campaign to in-dividually petition Congressto call a convention. How-

ever, on page 174, he statedthat if Congress resists the petitions of citizens for a con-vention that then “one moves

on to the procedure set out in Article V andlobbies for state legislatures to send simi-lar petitions to Congress.” Levinson con-tinued, “We are surely entitled to believethat Congress would adhere to the clearcommand of the Constitution and call aconvention should two-thirds of the statesagree.” Apart from serving on ConventionUSA’s advisory board, Levinson was one

of the invited guest speakers at the HarvardConConCon. Furthermore, Levinson isalso listed on Call a Convention’s “ArticleV Movement” page.

As for Lawrence Lessig, the founder ofCall a Convention, he wrote the followingin an article entitled “Fidelity in Transla-tion,” published in the May 1993 issue ofthe Texas Law Review:

We live in a time when almost sixty percent of the American public can-

www.TheNewAmerican.com 15

University of Texas Law School Professor Sanford Levinson asked in hisbook Our Undemocratic Constitution : “Shall Congress call a constitutionalconvention empowered to consider the adequacy of the Constitution and,

if thought necessary, to draft a new constitution that, upon completion, willbe submitted to the electorate for its approval or disapproval by majorityvote ?” (Emphasis added.)





not even identify the Bill of Rights.If the document has become so outof date that its meaning is no longer plain to all — if it has become im- possible to imagine a world where or-dinary people carry the Constitution

in their pockets — then perhaps it istime to restore its meaning by, as Jus-tice [John Paul] Stevens has recentlysuggested, amending the text to pre-serve the meaning. Perhaps, that is,it is time to rewrite our Constitution.[Emphasis added.]

Under the guise of trying to make theConstitution more understandable for “or-dinary people,” Lessig reveals his desire torewrite the Constitution. Lessig then goeson to confirm his intention to rewrite the

Constitution:

We are like the person who findshimself at the store, with a list he canno longer make out, struggling toreconstruct what it must have beenthat he wanted to buy; at some pointit may make sense simply to decideagain what he wants, to rewrite thelist, to give up the obsession that it

must be the same as the old list, to

move on. [Emphasis added.]

Lessig, the godfather of the Article Vmovement, believes “it is time to rewriteour Constitution” and that those who ad-here to the Constitution as it is should“give up the obsession that it must be thesame as the old” in order “to move on.”

Lessig’s statements invoke the same sen-timent as Levinson’s.

During the ConConCon, Uygur askedLessig questions about the prospect ofa new constitutional convention and thepossibility that it would become a run-away convention. Lessig responded thatany “crazy amendments” proposed at aconvention would still need to be ratifiedby 38 states. Uygur joyfully continued,“I agree, and the original convention theysay was … a runaway convention. It was,and it produced the greatest document

known to man.” Lessig then smiled andreplied, “Let’s have some more runawayconventions.”

A “runaway” con-vention does notscare Lessig; it isprecisely what moti-vates him. Individu-als such as Lessig,Levinson, Penrose,and Stevens seek todo away with the

“outdated” Constitution of 1787 and re-place it with an entirely new constitutionbearing little similarity to the currentone. With each application petitioningCongress to call a constitutional con-vention, the country moves closer to en-abling the Left to completely rewrite theConstitution. The Left’s deceptive questto rewrite the Constitution is nothingnew and would have transpired alreadyhad it not been for the effectual and fer-vent work of The John Birch Society. Fordecades The John Birch Society and itsmembers across the country have workedtirelessly, actively educating people andlawmakers about the dangers of a consti-tutional convention. Art Thompson, CEOof The John Birch Society, told THE NEW AMERICAN:

With the failure of the Equal RightsAmendment, the overt thrust of theLeft to alter the nature of our Con-stitution segued into a stealth pro-gram to bring about a constitutionalconvention in the name of institutingwhat American conservatives val-ued: pro-life, against flag burning, a balanced budget ― anything to gainsupport for an initiative to set thestage for changing the Constitution.And, all the while, the Left has been

involved in the process.

Thompson continued, “More and moreevidence has surfaced that this is thecase. The John Birch Society has beenthe vanguard for 40 years in prevent-ing a constitutional convention and wecontinue to be that vanguard.” UnlessAmericans become educated and get ac-tively involved, the names Washington,Madison, and Franklin will be effaced by the names Lessig, Levinson, and Pen-rose. As Lessig gleefully wrote in 2010

regarding an Article V constitutionalconvention, “It would be a grand circusof democracy.” n

16

CONSTITUTION

EXTRA COPIES AVAILABLEAdditional copies of this issue of THE

NEW AMERICAN are available at quantity-discount prices. To place your order, visitwww.shopjbs.org or see the card betweenpages 34-35.

➧

THE NEW AMERICAN • JuNE 9, 2014

Eliminating freedoms he doesn’t like: Former Associate Justice John Paul Stevens proposessix alterations to the Constitution in his new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We ShouldChange the Constitution , among which include curtailing the First Amendment through campaignfinance reform and limiting the “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” as provided in theSecond Amendment, to only “when serving in the Militia.”

AP Images

http://www.shopjbs.org/




Nullification vs. Constitutional Convention:How to Save Our RepublicWith the U.S. Constitution being disregarded by every branch of thefederal government, the solution is for voters and state legislatorsto enforce it, not revise it. (Reprint) (2014, 8pp, 1/$0.50; 25/$10.00;100/$35.00; 1,000/$300.00) RPNVCC

Nullification: The Rightful Remedy This documentary film, created by the Foundation for a FreeSociety and the Tenth Amendment Center, will give you some

tools you can use to stand up for the Constitution and lib-erty, whether the federal government gives you “permission” ornot. (2012, DVD, 70min, 1/$24.95; 5-9/$19.95ea; 10+/$15.95ea)DVDNTRR

N E W

Go to ShopJBS to view additional downloadable Con-Con tools

To Preserve the NationConstitution expert Scott Bradley explains why state legislatures should notapply to Congress to call an Article V constitutional convention for the purpose ofproposing a balanced budget amendment. (2014, 47min., sleeved DVD) (1/$1.00;11/$0.90ea; 21/$0.80ea; 50ea/$0.75ea; 100/$0.70ea; 1,000/$0.64ea) DVDTPTN

Revise or Follow the Constitution?The federal government does not obey the Constitution. So why would it startobeying the Constitution if the document was changed by a constitutional con-vention? (2014, four-color trifold pamphlet) 1/$0.20; 100/$0.15ea; 500/$0.13ea;1,000/$0.10ea) PROFTC

Balancing Our Budget Find out about the real dangers in applying for an Article V convention to obtaina balanced budget amendment. (2014, four-color trifold pamphlet) 1/$0.20;100/$0.15ea; 500/$0.13ea; 1,000/$0.10ea) PBOB

Gambling With Our ConstitutionLearn about the numerous liberal-minded groups that are calling for an Article Vconvention, and why they are calling for a constitutional convention. (2014, four-color trifold pamphlet) 1/$0.20; 100/$0.15ea; 500/$0.13ea; 1,000/$0.10ea) PGWOC

Dangers of a Constitutional ConventionA constitutional convention would be an ineffective andrisky method for getting the federal government back undercontrol. (Reprint) (2009, 8pp, 1/$0.50; 25/$10.00; 100/$35.00;1,000/$300.00) RPCC



How the Compact for AmericaThreatens the ConstitutionThe constitutional convention (Con-Con) proposed by the Compact for America Initiative wouldpose an unacceptably high risk of damage to the Constitution. This reprint provides the informa-tion needed to defeat this con-con initiative in state legislatures and Congress. (Reprint) (2013,8pp., 1/$0.50; 25/$10.00; 100/$35.00; 1,000/$300.00) RPCFA

States Should Enforce,

Not Revise, the Constitution!The states should rein in our out-of-control federal gov-ernment by enforcing the Constitution through nullifi-cation of unconstitutional federal laws, rather than byrevising the Constitution through an inherently riskyconstitutional convention process. (Reprint) (2010, 8pp,1/$0.50; 25/$10.00; 100/$35.00; 1,000/$300.00) RPENRC

Beware of Con-ConsA 12-minute DVD video featuring three state legisla-tors who urge their fellow legislators to vote against anyresolution calling for a constitutional convention (con-con). (2011, 12min, sleeved DVD, 1/$1.00; 11-20/$0.90ea;

21-49/$0.80ea; 50-99/$0.75ea; 100-999/$0.70ea;1,000+/$0.64ea.) Also available in CD format. Sold in clearplastic sleeve only. DVDBCC(A 30-minute expanded version also available, call fordetails or go to ShopJBS.org.)

Beware of Article V This 36-minute video emphasizes the inability of state legislators to prevent a “runaway” federalconstitutional convention.Sleeved DVD (2009, 36min, 1/$1.00; 11/$0.90ea; 21/$0.80ea; 50/$0.75ea; 100/$0.70ea) DVDBAF.Cased DVD (2009, 36min, 1/$5.95; 10/$49.50; 25/$98.75; 100/$225.00) DVDBAFC. Audio CD (2009,36min, 1/$1.00; 11-20/$0.90ea; 21-49/$0.80ea; 50-99/$0.75ea; 100+/$0.70ea) CDBAF

Levin’s Risky Proposal: A Constitutional Convention

This article critiques Mark Levin’s basic arguments in favor of a constitutional conven-tion in his book Liberty Amendments. (Reprint) (2013, 8pp., 1/$0.50; 25/$10.00; 100/$35.00;1,000/$300.00) RPLRP

✁

14Ø6Ø

Go to ShopJBS to view additional downloadable Con-Con tools

Standard: 4-14business days.Rush: 3-7 business

days, no P.O. Boxes,HI/AK add $10.00

Order Subtotal$0-10.99

$11.00-19.99

$20.00-49.99

$50.00-99.99$100.00-149.99

$150.00+

Standard Shipping$4.95

$7.75

$9.95

$13.75$15.95

call

Rush Shipping$9.95

$12.75

$14.95

$18.75$20.95

call

0000000000000

0000000000000000

0000

Name ______________________________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________________________

City _____________________________ State __________ Zip ________________

Phone ____________________________ E-mail ______________________________

❑ Check ❑ VISA ❑ Discover

❑ Money Order ❑ MasterCard ❑ American Express

# _________________________________________ Exp. Date ________________

Signature

VISA/MC/DiscoverThree Digit V-Code

American ExpressFour Digit V-Code

SUBTOTAL TOTALWI RESIDENTS ADD5% SALES TAX

SHIPPING/HANDLING(SEE CHART BELOW)

QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL PRICETITLE

Make checks payable to: ShopJBS ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

For shipments otside the u.S., please call for rates.

Credit-card orders call toll-free now! 1-800-342-6491

Order Online: www.ShopJBS.org

Mail completed form to:ShopJBS • P.O. BOX 8040

APPLETON, WI 54912

Order Online

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_10/ShopJBS.org



http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_10/ShopJBS.org

Documents

Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution