Judi Caler: No room for debate on Article V convention? | TheUnion.com

Judi Caler: No room for debate on Article V convention?

Other Voices
Judi Caler

Stan Meckler is incorrect in his May 2 editorial “It’s time for a Convention of States.” I agree our country is in big trouble. But the solution isn’t an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution.

The Constitution isn’t the problem, and it doesn’t need changing; it needs enforcing and defending. Limiting the federal government to its enumerated (constitutional) powers would solve our problems.

Amendments to the Constitution were meant to correct errors and defects in the Constitution, not to rein in an out-of-control government. Solutions to the latter do exist that don’t risk our Constitution; solutions like nullification, a constitutional sheriff, and education of the populace regarding the Constitution we have.

Stan asks, “So what is all the fuss about Article V?” Perhaps he should read the Declaration of Independence, paragraph two. We the People have the inherent, God-given right “to alter or to abolish” our form of government whenever it becomes destructive and institute a new one. This would include proposing a new Constitution.

Are debates in order only when the Mecklers haven’t had the last — or only — word?

And don’t think there aren’t a couple of constitutions waiting in the wings the minute an Article V convention is called. The new Constitution would have its own mode of ratification, as did ours in 1787, so Stan’s “ultimate safeguard” could easily disappear. For example, the Proposed Constitution of the Newstates of America, promoted by Nelson Rockefeller in 1976, was a product of the Ford Foundation which took 10 years and $25 million to “perfect;” it would establish a totalitarian government with ratification by a referendum called by the president!

The fact is no one knows what would happen at an Article V Convention, since there has never been one. When we do open-heart surgery on our founding document, it is wise to understand and discuss the risks ahead of time. Instead, Article V convention advocates like Mark Meckler’s Convention of States group (COS) accuse others of being afraid, claim there are no risks or alternatives, brazenly predict convention rules, deny an “Article V convention” is the same as a “constitutional convention,” and rely heavily on the legal opinion of a former law professor who engages in circular logic and references his own writings to support his conclusions.

Stan complained that Pastor David Whitney’s presentation to the Nevada County Tea Party (NCTP) was “highly slanted” against an Article V Convention. He stated “This is the first time in the history of the NCTP that we the people were not allowed to express our opinion.” Not true. This meeting had the same format as every other Tea Party meeting; the only difference was that Stan didn’t agree with the speaker. If asked, I’m sure Stan would acknowledge that he was treated with respect by Pastor Whitney. This is diametrically opposed to my treatment and others by his son Mark Meckler, who has a proclivity for attacking conservatives who disagree with him on the Article V issue. Apparently the apple didn’t fall far from the tree.

Stan neglected to mention that during 2014 alone, Stan and his son Mark were given at least three large blocks of meeting time to promote their COS agenda to the NCTP. The invitation to Pastor Whitney was an attempt to balance the prior presentations.

Apparently Stan believes that Pastor Whitney, an expert on the Constitution and history, did enough damage in an hour to COS arguments promoted within the NCTP for over a year to warrant yet another COS presentation during Q&A. It certainly motivated him to write an editorial blasting his former organization for simply educating its members.

Stan grumbled that the NCTP allows no debate on the COS issue. Wrong again. Stan is well aware that Mark Meckler was invited to debate KrisAnne Hall on the “Convention of States” issue at an upcoming Nevada County Tea Party event July 10. Mark’s written refusal claimed, “We have won the debate … We have gone beyond the time when we provided a national forum for such absurdity … We don’t have time to provide a venue for the crazy fringe conspiracy theories of the Article V deniers … we only elevate them when we agree to debate.”

Are debates in order only when the Mecklers haven’t had the last — or only — word?

For information and documentation in opposition to a “Convention of States,” go to https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com.

Judi Caler lives in Nevada City and is the ‘Article V Convention’ Issues Director for Eagle Forum of California.


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.