A move in the US we should perhaps be aware of:
Last week Michigan’s legislature voted and passed a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention. They are the 34th state to do so, and this should trigger the Convention of the States.
Pretty major, yet the MSM is ignoring it.
Under Article 5 of the US Constitution, if 2/3rds of the states call for such a convention, (meaning 34 states) it MUST take place. During such a convention, the ENTIRE Constitution can be changed; nothing is off-limits. This would even allow the States to dismantle the federal government without its consent, and repudiate the debt which that government has incurred! When it voted for the convention last week, Michigan became the 34 th state, thus meeting the requirement.
In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on today to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter’s interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment — something that could be done at a constitutional convention.
Again, an article given to hysterics, with capitalized words and exclamation marks and yet it has a point. However:
But Article V is rather vague, and it’s ultimately unclear whether 34 states have technically applied. In the past, states like Oregon, Utah and Arizona have quietly voted to approve the provision in their legislature.
But some of the 34 or so have rescinded their requests. Others have rescinded, and then re-applied.
Alabama rescinded its request in 1988 but in 2011, lawmakers again applied for a convention related to an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced. It was a similar story in Florida in 2010.
Louisiana rescinded in 1990 but lawmakers have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to reinstate the application since then.
So yet again, there’s a situation, as in the now bankrupt US and UK, that reality is what a group of Them determine it will be for the purpose of their legislation. Them want constitutional amendment no matter by which back door and they’ve not been silent on this in the least and the aim is quite clear:
Feb. 9, 1950 – The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee introduces Senate Concurrent Resolution #66 which begins: “Whereas, in order to achieve universal peace and justice, the present Charter of the United Nations should be changed to provide a true world government constitution.”
The resolution is introduced by Senator Glen Taylor (D-Idaho), who later states: “We would have to sacrifice considerable sovereignty to the world organization to enable them to levy taxes in their own right to support themselves.”
April 12, 1952 – CFR member John Foster Dulles [who later became Secretary of State], in speaking before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky, says: “Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”
1962 – “The Future of Federalism” by Nelson Rockefeller claims that current events compellingly demand a “new world order.” He says there is: “A fever of nationalism…but the nation-state is becoming less and less competent to perform its international political tasks…These are some of the reasons pressing us to lead vigorously toward the true building of a new world order…Sooner perhaps than we may realize…there will evolve the bases for a federal structure of the free world.”
May 18, 1972 – In speaking of the coming world government, Roy M. Ash, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, declares that: “…within two decades the institutional framework for a world economic community will be in place…and aspects of individual sovereignty will be given over to a supernational authority.”
1975 – In Congress, 32 Senators and 92 Representatives sign “A Declaration of Interdependence,” which states that “we must join with others to bring forth a new world order…Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation.”
Congresswoman Marjorie Holt refuses to sign the Declaration saying: “It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a ‘new world order’ that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people.”
This latest move is another way of circumventing the people to achieve the changes Them want. Of course it’s presented as a states rights and move on behalf of the people but it has nothing to do with the interests of the people – it is all about constitutional “review” carried out undemocratically, with people eventually having a referendum forced on them in which the couching of the question will be heavily slanted.
The MSM won’t follow this up – it has to be blogs which carry it.