GOP Rep Voters Shouldn't
Be Able To Elect Senators

By Devvy
That is the headline going around:
Washington Independent
"Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) " a judge in his prior career " comes out for repealing the 17th Amendment, to "restore the balance between the federal government and the states by giving the right to appoint senators back to state legislatures." Read Full Story Reported by Powell Gammill
It is misleading to say the least - Voters shouldn't be able to elect senators. Rep comes out for repealing the 17th Amendment.
If you read Gohmert's press release below, no where does it say he is for repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
I just got off the phone with Rep. Gohmert's office. If you have any doubts, pick up the phone. That's what stops bad information from being sent out in emails.

Rep. Gohmert is not, according to his aid, advocating for repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.

Of course, it's a bit difficult to repeal a law that doesn't exist:

Rep. Gohmert wants a constitutional convention. That would be the end of the U.S. Constitution. I believe he means well, but this is NOT the path to pursue.

We fought one off back in 1994 -- just barely. This is so dangerous. 

Please call your state rep and senator and tell them: NO constitutional convention.

Rep. Gohmert lives in a dream world if he thinks only one amendment would be the subject of a con-con. Not with the evil forces arrayed against we the people. Besides, it takes 5-7 YEARS to get a constitutional amendment through the system until rejected or ratified. We don't have that kind of time.

Even though our state legislature is out of session until Jan 2011, I am calling this morning just to let them know how I feel. I will also be in Austin at the state capitol shortly and will drop off a letter to my state rep and senator asking them to vote no for a constitutional convention.,44,125&itemid=805
Gohmert Calls for Amendment Convention by States
WASHINGTON, DC - "U.S. Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) calls upon at least the 39 states that are disputing the Federal government's latest power grab to review Article V of the U.S. Constitution and consider proposing an amendment to stop the runaway Congress and White House.
"Rep. Gohmert stated, "The usurpation of the rights of the states and of the people perpetrated by the U.S. House last night is blatant, arrogant, and cries out for action. A potentially bankrupting mother of all unfunded mandates, needs to be stopped. The courts may or may not do it, but the states are not helpless. Article V of our U.S. Constitution anticipates a time when states perceive a looming crisis and provides an avenue for amending the Constitution. It makes clear that if two-thirds of the states are fed up with the federal government's abusive action, then they simply apply for a convention, and the Congress SHALL call such a convention for proposing an amendment.
"Ever since the safeguard of State legislatures electing U.S. Senators was removed by the 17th Amendment in 1913, there has been no check or balance on the Federal power grab for the last 97 years. Article V requires a minimum of 34 states to request a Convention which in this case, would be an Amendment Convention for only ONE amendment.
"That one amendment would put a check and balance back on Federal usurpation of rights reserved to the States and people under the 9th and 10th Amendments. When drafted, the amendment would require ratification by only 38 states. We already have 39 states and that number will, no doubt, grow as people become aware of the foundational damage being done to the country, said Gohmert."
Dangers of a Constitutional Convention
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
In part:
"Warren Burger, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, argued along the same lines when he vigorously opposed convening a constitutional convention in a letter he wrote to Phyllis Schlafley of Eagle Forum on June 22, 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. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose."
"While it would be perfectly constitutional to convene an Article V constitutional convention, it would not be prudent. Given the present-day general lack of knowledge of both the Constitution and the original intent of our Founders, along with the inordinate influence over our political processes by very biased elites, the chances that a modern-day constitutional convention and subsequent ratification process could change our Constitution for the worse are too great to risk calling for such a convention.
"We even have a warning directly from James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution, concerning the inadvisability of calling for a constitutional convention. When the states of New York and Virginia formally petitioned Congress in 1788 to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, which had only been completed the year before, Madison wrote a letter in which he emphatically warned against convening such a convention:
If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress.... It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides ... [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts ... might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.... Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America. [From a letter by James Madison to G.L. Turberville, November 2, 1788.]
"Two hundred twenty years later, James Madison's arguments against the calling of an Article V constitutional convention are still very convincing. Even though he had been directly involved in crafting the Constitution the previous year, he specifically advised against exercising the provision in Article V for calling a new constitutional convention because "individuals of insidious views could use the pretense of pursuing popular amendments to mask their real intentions of radically revising the Constitution."
Rest at link
The Internet has lots of alarm postings claiming Judge Andrew Napolitano supports a con-con. According to Glen Beck, he does not: - Scroll down to Note from Glenn:

"Let's be clear that no one is calling for a Constitutional Convention. The Judge has outlined what would need to be done, legally, in order for the 10th Amendment to have some real teeth put back into it. No one really wants a Constitutional Convention."
Uh, oh...better wait a minute and believe me, I find this terribly disappointing:
Another Endorsement of a Constitutional Convention on Glenn Beck
" was very disappointing to see a well-known constitutional scholar, Professor Kevin Gutzman, promote the concept on the Glenn Beck TV Show on Tuesday, November 10 (see embedded video below). Judge Andrew Napolitano was the substitute host due to Beck's appendicitis operation. As documented in my article, "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention," posted on on June 23, both Professor Randy Barnett and Judge Napolitano had endorsed the idea of a constitutional convention on the Beck show earlier this year."
Rest at link
Also, it's a good idea to take two minutes to call your governor and tell him/her you are adamantly opposed to a constitutional convention. Here is the list of all 50 state governors:
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.
Visit Devvy's website at: You can also sign up for her free email alerts. Devvy's new radio show debuts, April 5, 2010. Monday - Friday; 3:00 pm PST, 5:00 pm CST and 6:00 pm EST. See this link to tune in:
listen livelisten live

Donate to
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At
Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, 
Highest Quality Live Programs


This Site Served by TheHostPros