Michigan Triggers Constitutional Convention: Could U.S. Constitution Be Changed to Eliminate Second Amendment?

constitutional-convention

(Pictured: The Constitutional Convention of 1787)

Editor’s Note: As highlighted in the article below by Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars, Michigan may have just triggered a modern-day Constitutional Convention. Though it’s not yet clear if Michigan’s call for a convention pushes us over the threshold due to procedural issues associated with the applications of other states, at the very least our Federal Congress will now be forced to review the situation.

Our nation is broken, that should be clear. Our Founders left for us a  mechanism to fix it, and one of the most powerful is an Article V Constitutional Convention, which is designed specifically for the fifty states to initiate Constitutional changes outside of the purview of the federal government. The President of the United States, for example, will have absolutely no say in the matter and is unable to exercise veto power over Constitutional Amendments. The Federal Congress can do nothing more than oversee the Convention. And the Judicial Branch will have to abide by ANY and ALL ratified changes.

What this means is that should Congress determine that the 2/3 state (34 states) qualification has been met, then the States will propose and then vote on Amendments to the existing U.S. Constitution. Keep in mind that this could mean the addition of Amendments in the form of codicils (Like the amendments that followed the Bill of Rights), or the complete removal of existing amendments. This could go either direction – good or bad, as Paul points out with the Second Amendment. The Founders did take steps to ensure that all, or at least most, Americans supported any proposes changes by requiring 3/4 (38) states to ratify any changes.

This may be a welcome change for America at the present time. We’re sure our readers can think of scores of Amendments that would make America better. But, there is a flip side to that coin, and things could change for the worse should the States agree on changes that might, for example, “update” the Second or First amendments (or any of the others that are the pillars of American liberty).


Could U.S. Constitution Be Changed to Eliminate Second Amendment?
By Paul Joseph Watson

The entire U.S. Constitution could be up for review after Michigan became the 34th state to vote in favor of a Constitutional Convention, satisfying a rule that states America’s founding document can be amended if two thirds of state legislatures approve the measure.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments” should the two thirds requirement be met, which it was last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed the move.

Following the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter called for a Constitutional Convention to be given the go ahead.

“Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote.

While some would welcome the opportunity to amend the Constitution to institute fiscal conservatism, others fear the move could easily be hijacked to negate parts of the document that protect fundamental liberties, such as the right to bear arms and freedom of speech.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recently called for ”improving” the Constitution by changing the second amendment so the right to bear arms only applied to those in a “militia” and not the general public at large.

“Nevertheless, in such a convention, the ENTIRE Constitution is subject to review and can be altered and changed. This could be everything from installing “social justice” to the dissolution of the federal government. Everything is on the table as if we were back in 1776 Philadelphia,” writes Martin Armstrong, adding that the Michigan vote represents an, “unprecedented event to amend the U.S. Constitution.”

Fox News’ Barnini Chakraborty notes that it is unclear whether the 34 state requirement has been met since some have rescinded their votes, but constitutional scholar Gregory Watson said there could be no take backs.

“If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio’s 2013 application for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33rd and Michigan’s 2014 application would be the 34th on that topic,” said Watson.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.


SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You

ACTION NEEDED: IRS writing regs that allow it to suppress the Tea Party and Constitutional Conservatives

Guest post by James Simpson

The IRS got caught with their pants down last year. So now they are writing regulations that will allow them to do legally what they were doing illegally before. Every time you think these people can sink no lower, they go out of their way to prove you wrong. A cabal of leftist groups sued the IRS demanding they adopt these regulations, whereupon the IRS went out of its way to comply. This is a classic set up. It was probably agreed to in advance between the IRS and the plaintiffs. Now that they are complying, the leftists have magically dropped their suit!

Here is how to fight back. The following was written by Cleta Mitchell, one of the best attorneys in this field. Read it, follow the instructions and pass them around. The following is reprinted verbatim with permission:

DON’T LET THE IRS SILENCE YOU!!

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED IRS REGULATIONS FOR C4 ORGANIZATIONS

ARE DUE NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 27, 2014

Comments can be filed via email:

Submissions may be sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov

Include this citation: IRS REG-134417-13

That will take you to the IRS comments page where you can enter your comments. Be sure to include your name and address.

Tell the IRS it should hold public hearings around the nation on these regs

1. Rules are complex and impose huge burdens on 501c4 groups to calculate and report to IRS many (if not most) normal c4 activities…that will not be counted toward primary purpose if these are adopted.

Tell the IRS:

  • it is impractical, burdensome and unacceptable for the IRS to interject itself into the inner workings of every citizens group in the country
  • the IRS is supposed to be collecting revenues, not snooping and trampling on the First Amendment rights of the citizens
  • we are not subjects and we are permitted to engage in First Amendment activities without reporting those activities to the IRS

2. The activities that the IRS would now define as ‘candidate-related political activities’, subject to taxation and reporting to the IRS, are basic 501c4 activities:

  • Grassroots lobbying
  • Candidate forums
  • Candidate debates
  • Voter registration
  • Voter guides
  • Issue advocacy

Tell the IRS these rules are unacceptable because they would:

  • keep citizens from holding their public officials accountable
  • silence citizens and chill the very purpose of grassroots groups
  • create different rules and standards for different types of 501c groups, such that a charitable organization could do MORE than a grassroots group
  • force citizens to get their information about candidates from 30 second tv ads and the candidates and the media – rather than from candidate debates, candidate forums and seeing public officials face-to-face in townhall and other meetings
  • treat as candidate-related activities essentially everything that a grassroots organization does
  • force organizations to remove legislative voting records from their websites in even-numbered years
  • treat legislative voting records as a taxable, non-primary purpose activity of a c4 organization
  • treat meetings with public officials as taxable events, even when the official appears as an “official” and not as a candidate
  • treat internal membership communications as taxable, if there is a mention of a candidate or public official, if a group has more than 500 members who receive the communication
  • declare certain activities to be ‘candidate-related’ political activities, EVEN if no candidate is mentioned
  • allow labor unions, churches, universities, veterans groups, social clubs, business groups and others to have greater First Amendment rights than grassroots citizens organizations
  • citizens groups shouldn’t have to pay taxes on protected First Amendment activities such as publishing voting records, grassroots lobbying and voter registration

Many other possible examples and reasons. Write your own. Call your congressman!

Join with other grassroots activists in fighting the IRS regs!

www.wewillnotbesilenced.org

Questions?
Cleta Mitchell, Esq.
(202) 295-4081 ofc
cmitchell@foley.com

Doug Ross @ Journal

New Jersey Says You Must Have a “Justifiable Need” to Exercise Your Constitutional Rights

Guest post by Brian Kelly

Picture a woman going to register to vote in New Jersey only to find the State has passed a law requiring her to undergo a background check, pay a fee, show proficiency in civics and, after meeting all those requirements, having to write a summary justifying her Need to vote.

Now, after attempting to justify her need to exercise her right (let that statement sink in) she is denied by a judge who has arbitrarily determined that she didn’t have an urgent need to vote.

That judge’s lover and the local police chief’s sister-in-law however have miraculously passed all the above hurtles and can freely exercise that right with gleeful abandon.

Too farfetched? How about in the aftermath of 911, New Jersey passes a law requiring anyone wishing to practice Islam must apply for an Islam permit and show ‘justifiable need’ to pray to Allah. The State justifies this by claiming a large amount of terrorists are Islamic and therefore the Islam Permits will only be issued to very few people in order to protect the public, after all they can’t have NJ turn into the Gaza Strip.

If you find these examples offensive, you should, as they clearly violate an American’s rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and no amount of fearful justification merits such infringement. Unfortunately that same, arbitrary, subjective standard applies to most New Jersian’s right to protect themselves and their loved ones in public with a firearm.

New Jersey’s ‘Justifiable Need’ requirement to obtain a carry permit is the self defense equivalent of ‘Separate but Equal’ Jim Crow laws.

In a recent Appeal (http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a3704-11.pdf) the judiciary continued to defend the reprehensible concept of ‘justifiable need’. “applicants for carry permits generally must show “‘an urgent necessity . . . for self-protection’” by pointing to “specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to the applicant’s life that cannot be avoided by other means.” Preis, supra, 118 N.J. at 571 (quoting Siccardi, supra, 59 N.J. at A-3704-11T4 17 557).”

Think about that for a second. So in order to show you need to carry a weapon for self-defense, which is a basic human right, guaranteed by the constitution, you have to first suffer an attack. So in the case of the recent Short Hills Mall Shooting, now that the victim is dead at the hands of violent criminals, he might meet the ‘justifiable need’ which doesn’t do him or his grieving family any good now.

It is tantamount to the government claiming you have no justifiable need to carry an umbrella because it isn’t currently raining. Ask yourself why do we as law abiding citizens have to wait until we are raped, beaten and killed before the State can see fit to grant us a right to self-defense which is a basic human right dating back to caveman times?

The other justification sited for the clear infringement on our right to defend ourselves before we are crime statistics is unfounded fear, “And the demonstration of particularized need that serves to limit “widespread handgun possession in the streets, somewhat reminiscent of frontier days, would not be at all in the public interest.” Siccardi, supra, 59 N.J. at 558.”

This is completely proven false by the overwhelming data available from the 41 states that actually allow their citizens to carry concealed weapons, five of which are Constitutional Carry not requiring any separate permit.

They have not turned into the Wild West with people shooting each other over parking spaces. In fact, in every state that has enabled their citizens to protect themselves with a firearm violent crime has gone down across the board. Here in NJ, violent criminals know they have little to fear from their disarmed, helpless victims unlike the majority of the other States in the Union where a criminal cannot be sure their target is defenseless.

The bottom line is, we are on our own and responsible for the defense of ourselves and our loved ones. The Supreme Court ruled that individuals have no right to expect protection from the police. (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278). It was also held the Police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals (Warren v. District of Columbia). We are on our own when the majority of violent crime occurs and we require the means by which to defend ourselves. You ask for ‘Justifiable Need’ and the answer is simple, self evident and at the core of our founding as a nation.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

If you are uncomfortable and wouldn’t dream of owning, let alone carrying a gun for protection that’s ok. Please, don’t deny law abiding citizens, like myself, the right a large majority of States already afford their citizens. My ability to carry is not only my best chance to protect myself and my loved ones; it could also save you and yours. In conclusion I leave you with the words of Thomas Paine from Thoughts On Defensive War,

“[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”

Hat tip: BadBlue Gun News.

Doug Ross @ Journal

OHIO: Real Republicans Introduce Constitutional Carry Bill

Hey, Speaker Boehner: these are what we call real Republicans:

The citizen control lobby keeps trying to strip Americans of their unalienable rights, and liberty lovers keep punching back twice as hard.

Two Republican legislators propose eliminating the license required to carry a concealed handgun in Ohio, a change one describes as an effort to put Second Amendment rights on the same footing as others in the Bill of Rights.

The bill, introduced Wednesday by Reps. Ron Hood of Ashville and Matt Lynch of Bainbridge Township in Geauga County, would allow any person who is at least 21 years old to carry a concealed firearm, so long as they are not legally prohibited for some reason from having guns…

Lynch said the bill is an effort to treat the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment with the same freedom as other rights.

The right in the Second Amendment is the only one in the Bill of Rights that you have to get permission for,” Lynch said.

“You don’t have to have a speech license or a worship license or a freedom of the press license,” he said. “This is designed to put the Second Amendment on equal footing.”

The law would not end restrictions on taking firearms into certain restricted areas, but would end concealed carry licensing restrictions. Constitutional carry is becoming a more popular cause in the past year, as many Americans rebel against the thought of more citizen control laws. The common sentiment seems to be that not only are proposed citizen control laws counterproductive, but the current laws are too restrictive and should be rolled back.

This reality seems to be shocking to citizen control cultists, who can’t seem to grasp the basic concept that citizens want more liberty, not less.

You know, the Constitution and the Bill of Right are written in plain English. The right to defend the lives of you and your family members is not up for debate. That right is not given to us by any government; it is our right as human beings. It is a God-given right.

Ohio’s state legislature gives me hope. It gives me hope that this Republic can yet be restored.

Hat tip: BadBlue Gun News.

Doug Ross @ Journal