4:15pm – Amy Kremer
-          Visiting the Gulf
-          How are people affected.
-          WHAT:  Gulfathon – Americans Helping Americans
-          WHEN:  Thursday, July 29^th, nationwide on talk radio all day and webcast Noon to Midnight
-          WEBSITE: www.Gulfathon.org

4:30pm – Michael Badnarik
-          Upcoming Constitution Class in Orlando.
-          What is it like teaching the constitution? 
-          What’s the first thing we must know?
-          WHAT: Constitution Class.
-          WHEN: 
-          WHERE: 

4:45pm – Marianne Moran
-          She’s with www.TeaPartyInAction.com.
-          Talk about Charlie’s Bailout of US Sugar Corp.
-          Pitch Rally on Wednesday, July 14^th in West Palm Beach
-          WHAT:  End Charlie’s Bailout Rally
-          WHEN:  Wednesday, July 14^th, Noon – 2pm
-          WHERE:  South Florida Water Management District – Monthly Meeting, 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
-          WEBSITE:  www.EndCharliesBailout.com

5:00pm – Sean Caranna
-          Florida Open Carry
-          WEBSITE:  National www.OpenCarry.org, Florida, www.Open-Carry.org 

5:15pm – Matthew Falconer – Orange County Mayor Candidate (in-studio)
-          Suing State because of Sunrail.

5:30pm – Ron McCoy – West Orlando Tea Party
-          Had a conversation this week about social Issues taking backseat this election.
-          WHAT:  Congressional District 8 Candidate Forum
-          WHEN:  Thursday, August 12^th at 7pm
-          WHERE:  Foundation Academy, 15204 Tilden Road, Winter Garden, FL, (The South Campus)
-          WEBSITE:  www.WestOrlandoTeaParty.com

Below are the remarks I made at the Press Conference on Thursday, June 24th at 10:00AM at the Orange County Supervisor of Elections office in Orlando.

I have the unique and distinct honor of having been involved in the very first conference calls with patriots from around the country back in February of last year that kicked off the national tea party movement. On those calls, we planned the first round of protests in 50 cities nationwide on February 27th, 2009. Since that time, thousands of hours have been dedicated by volunteers across the state of Florida, as well as in every state of the union.

This morning, I have the privilege of speaking on behalf of a coalition of local tea party groups as we stand together with this very important message.

The CENTRAL FLORIDA TEA PARTY COUNCIL, an alliance of local tea party movement leaders, today calls for the immediate withdrawal of Florida TEA Party candidate Peg Dunmire from Florida’s District 8 Congressional race.

With this week’s unsettling disclosure, in numerous press accounts, of a financial connection between Democrat Congressman Alan Grayson’s campaign and the Florida TEA Party political party, the legitimacy of TEA Party candidates across Florida, including Peg Dunmire, can no longer be defended by any prudent observer.

Accordingly, we, as a fair representation of the actual tea party movement, appeal to the integrity of Ms. Dunmire and all other Florida TEA Party contenders to make the honorable decision and protect their individual character, and standing, by renouncing their TEA candidacies, effective immediately.

The recently formed Florida TEA Party political party, is a Tea Party in name only. They have been engaged in a litany of questionable actions since their formation and have never been connected to or found any support from the actual tea party movement. The key organizers of the tea party movement here in central Florida stand united with the leadership throughout the state of Florida. We do not support the Florida TEA Party political party.

At the core of the tea party movement is the concept that We The People will decide our candidates. We’re upset with political parties, the establishment, playing favorites and picking our candidates for us. What Doug Guetzloe and Fred O’Neal have done is hijacked a name we have been working thousands of hours volunteering for,…and all they have done is become a new establishment, with corrupt party bosses, where they pick candidates for us,…and now, we’re able to track sources of money.

As a result, we ask that Peg Dunmire and the rest of the TEA candidates, help us bring integrity back to Washington and Tallahassee,…help us bring integrity and ethics back to the political process,…disassociate yourself from the corrupt Florida TEA Party political party…. join with us in the real, true tea party movement as we work to bring back fiscal responsibility in government, to protect the Constitution, and to limit the size of our Federal government.

Thank you.

On Saturday, June 5th, ALIPAC will be hosting a rally followed by a rally on June 12th put on by ‘Tea Party Patriots Live’ and many other organizations.  We’ll be listing those organizations and setting up a website specifically for the event in the coming days. 

We’ll be arranging a bus from Orlando.

Tuesday Night, June 8th - Orlando Tea Party

Wednesday Night, June 9th - Houston Tea Party

Thursday Night, June 10th - Las Cruces Tea Party

Friday Night, June 11th - Diamondbacks Baseball Game in Phoenix

Saturday, June 12th – Rally at Bolin Memorial Park, across from the Arizona State Capitol.

Tea Party Patriots Live radio show hosts Jason Hoyt, Phil Russo are organizing a bus trip from Central Florida to Phoenix the week of the rally. There will be a send-off rally at Orlando City Hall on Tuesday, June 8th, at 6 p.m.  The bus will then make stops at Tea Party events in Houston and Las Cruces.  Tea Party organizers in those cities will be planning rallies and joining a caravan across Interstate 10 to the Arizona Capitol.  The bus will arrive on Friday, June 11th, in Phoenix where activists will have a chance to shop or go to a baseball game and spend an evening enjoying everything Phoenix has to offer, followed by a rally at noon on Saturday the 12th at Bolin Memorial Park across from the State Capitol.

More details to come!!

STAY TUNED!!!

Sign up below to stay up to date with the plans for the rally!! Details are coming at us every day!

I can already hear everyone I know bitching at me about this blog post.  This will, to me, prove who really stands for liberty and who is ready to sell out the Constitution when it suits their needs.  The phrases like “don’t tread on me” and “give me liberty or give me death” can only mean so much if, when called to defend the Constitution, we let fear come between us and liberty.

The guy they arrested for the attempted car-bombing in Times Square has a foreign sounding name but he is an American citizen. John Mccain is out there saying he shouldn’t have been given his Miranda rights and I’m sure many people reading this agree. He is, after all, a terrorist, right Weren’t Tim Mcveigh and the Unibomber?  I am sure they were read their Miranda rights. They were taken to civilian courts with a jury for sure.  And why wouldn’t they be? They are American citizens.

If they want to try this bastard for treason and have him drawn and quartered that is fine by me. But please don’t tell me that an American citizen arrested on the streets of one of our cities, shouldn’t be given Miranda rights.  I’ll bet if he were an illegal immigrant Mccain would have no problem with him.  If they can do it to this guy, they can do it to any of us.  If Obama decides that some tea party organizer is a “threat” to national security can he arrest them and not give the Miranda warnings and take them to a military court?  We are not talking about someone found fighting our soldiers in Iraq or some foreign national; this is an American citizen just like all of us.

I hope people understand that this is where the tea party folks need to stand up for the Constitution even though it is uncomfortable.  If they can take one of his rights away, they can take all of his rights away. If they can take away his rights, they can take away our rights.  People that are citizens of other countries do not need to be read Miranda rights.  People caught fighting us in Iraq should not be given Constituional rights.  American citizens, arrested in America deserve Constitutional rights. End of story.

WHOLESALE PRICING
NOW you can buy these products by the case and raise money for your group, blog, organization or business. 

AFFILIATE PROGRAM
You can sell these products on your website and let PowerThink Publishing do all the work.  Place banners on your website and when someone clicks through to make a purchase, you get all the credit and a 25% commission!!  [Learn More].

RETAIL
You can buy the products below and have them shipped to you immediately. We’ve partnered with PowerThink Publishing which means you’ll receive these products direct from the Publisher.

The Five Thousand Year Leap:
PowerThink Publishing is the official publisher of the Five Thousand Year Leap 30th Anniversary Edition with the Glenn Beck foreword. The most widely read book of the Tea Party and 9/12 movements enjoys the effect of Glenn Beck taking it to #1 on Amazon. The same title has been in the top 100 books consistently for one year. In conjunction with the Skousen family, the new edition contains many of W. Cleon Skousen’s notes, along with Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, along with over 100 questions we all need to ask candidates about their knowledge, support and understanding of the Constitution.

Buy the Five Thousand Year Leap by the case at wholesale pricing to raise money for your group, blog, business or organization!

Retail: $19.95  $11.95
Wholesale: Case of 48 books for only $7.98 each = $383.04
(retail sales @ $19.95 each = $575 profit)

[CLICK HERE]

U.S. Constitution Coach Kit – Essential Edition & Reagan Leadership Edition
This amazing collection of over 60,000 complete works and documents spans virtually every era of American history from the discovery and exploration era of Columbus, Coronado and Magellan to the present day, making this the largest collection of US History and Political Science works and documents ever assembled into one comprehensive database.

No other library includes so much valuable information on DVD for computer-aided study!

History: The development of this product began nearly 20 years ago when it was first released on 6 floppy disks under the heading ‘Firsthand History of America’. After nearly 2 decades the library has grown so large that it requires 2 fully-loaded DVDs, with thousands upon thousands of key works and documents at your fingertips in the easy-to-use, most comprehensive, fully searchable US Constitution Coach Kit.

Buy the US Constitution Coach Kit – Reagan Leadership Edition by the case at wholesale pricing to raise money for your group, blog, business or organization!

Retail: $49.95
Wholesale: Case of 25 kits for only $29.97 each = $749.25
(retail sales @ $49.95 = $500 profit)

[CLICK HERE]

US Constitution Pocket Reference Collection
PowerThink Publishing is proud to bring to you this pocket reference of the Constitution of the United States of America. Leaving the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What kind of country did you give us Mr. Franklin?” Franklin eloquently answered, “A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.” Reading and understanding the Constitution can insure an American Republic forever free and strong!

This unique version includes: The Constitution of the United States, A Brief History of the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, Q & A about the Constitution and Famous Quotes From the Founders.

Buy the Constitution Pocket Reference by the case at wholesale pricing to raise money for your group, blog, business or organization!

Retail: $4.95
Wholesale: Case of 50 for only $1.98 each = $99
(retail sales @ $4.95 each = $149 profit)

[CLICK HERE]

A More Perfect Union – Movie
AMERICA, 1786. Ten years have past since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. But America’s hopes for a united country are dangerously threatened. England wages a new war of unfair trade and tariffs. Fragmented states continually bicker over currencies, trade, taxations. America is a powder keg ready to explode.

But a handful of brilliant courageous men, James Madison, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin, lead a three year diplomatic battle that culminates in Philadelphia. There they created a new form of government…one that has since become the standard of freedom and democracy for the rest of the world.

Now, an exciting new motion picture recreates that dramatic event. A More Perfect Union—the first comprehensive film enactment of the birth of the Constitution was shot on location at Independence Hall and other historic locations in Virginia. It features a distinguished staff and has been carefully crafted by a seasoned staff of motion picture professionals.

Buy A More Perfect Union – Movie by the case at wholesale pricing to raise money for your group, blog, business or organization!

Retail: $11.95 (discounted from $19.95)
Wholesale: Case of 25 for only $7.98 each = $199.50
(retail sales @ $11.95 each = $99 profit)

[CLICK HERE]

So timely is A More Perfect Union that the US Commission on the Bicentennial of the Constitution has recognized this production to be of exceptional merit with national significance. The Commission has given its ‘Seal of Approval’.

The United States Constitution (completed and ratified) launched the newly United States on its voyage. For two centuries this unparalleled ship of democracy has sailed forth as an enduring vessel of freedom charting a course for the governments of every free nation in the world.

Brought to you by PowerThink Publishing, A More Perfect Union is a timeless piece of film capturing the spirit and determination of the framers of the US Constitution as they looked well beyond their own time to insure a nation built upon justice, morality, faith in God, and empowered by the people themselves.

Visit PowerThink Publishing’s online store HERE.

There is a vote scheduled to take place TODAY (Thursday, April 29th) in the U.S. House of Representatives on HR 2499, which would force Puerto Rico to become the 51st U.S. State.

Three times in the past 43 years Puerto Ricans have voted against becoming the 51st state in the Union. The last time was about 11 years ago. They enjoy their commonwealth status which allows them to enjoy the protection and freedoms and even financial benefits of the United States without paying federal income taxes.

HR 2499 would actually force a yes-or-no vote by Puerto Ricans on whether Puerto Rico should maintain the “current political status” of the island. This doesn’t seem so bad until the second part of the legislation comes into play; a second vote would take place, this one giving Puerto Ricans no option but statehood or full independence if the majority expresses dissatisfaction with the current political status. Even if there is no dissatisfaction and the “current political status” is favored, every eight years henceforth from the passage of HR 2499 Puerto Rico is forced to conduct another plebiscite on the matter at their own expense.

The problem of reassigning some seats in the U.S. House of Representatives is that by handing at least six or seven seats over to Puerto Rico, it would deprive six or seven existing states of one representative each because of the congressional mandated 435 seat cap. (This type of political maneuvering seems partisan because the seats in the Senate and the House would likely become Democratic ones, and electoral votes awarded Puerto Rico might outnumber those of 22 current states.)

Before American taxpayers have to absorb and bailout another financially failing institution – this time the island of Puerto Rico – both Americans and Puerto Ricans need to know and understand that this could just be a case of politicians using this very opaque legislation as a means to whatever ends they envision for not only Puerto Rico and the United States, but also for the political dynamics this situation might bring with it in the future.

Want more information?

Here is a Must Read:
What would statehood for Puerto Rico mean – the need for facts!

Here are some quick facts:
• The Puerto Rico Democracy Act would allow a federally sanctioned referendum to be conducted in Puerto Rico. Voters would be asked whether they support the present form of commonwealth government, or if they want Puerto Rico to seek a different political status. If the majority selects that they want a different political status, then another referendum would be held giving voters three options: Independence, Sovereignty in Association with the United States, or Statehood.

• Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth. Residents of Puerto Rico lack voting representation. They do not participate in presidential elections. As U.S. citizens, Puerto Ricans are subject to military service and most federal laws. In the present legislation, Commonwealth status is not an option.

• Puerto Rico has a Governor that is elected directly for a four-year term. There is a bicameral legislature. This consists of a 27-member Senate and a 51-member House of Representatives. Each of these is elected for four-year terms.

• Most Puerto Ricans do not consider English as their sole official language. No non-English speaking state has ever joined the union.

• If Puerto Rico were to become a state of the union, it would then be allowed 2 Senators and possibly 6 – 8 Congressional members.

If you do not agree with the passage of this bill, then contact your Congressman and send a message that you are unwilling to have them support such a bill until all the political, economic, and cultural details are out on the table for both Puerto Rico and the U.S. Urge them to oppose HR 2499 on the grounds that it is a very bad move in the present economic and financial climate.

Listed below are Representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties. If you think this is bad legislation and is not what is good for our country, we ask that you contact these members and let them know that this bill is not what the American people want and that they must vote NO!

Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (TN)
Phone: 202-225-2811, 202-225-2811, 202-225-2811
Fax: 202-225-3004

Congressman Joe Wilson (SC)
Phone: (202) 225-2452, (202) 225-2452, (202) 225-2452
Fax: (202) 225-2455

Congressman Mike Pence (IN)
Phone: (202) 225-3021, (202) 225-3021, (202) 225-3021
Fax: (202) 225-3382

Congressman John Fleming (LA)
Phone: (202) 225-2777, (202) 225-2777, (202) 225-2777
Fax: (202) 225-8039

Congressman Bill Cassidy
Phone: (202) 225-3901, (202) 225-3901, (202) 225-3901
Fax: (202) 225-7313

Congressman Ron Paul (TX)
Phone: (202) 225-2831, (202) 225-2831, (202) 225-2831

Congresswoman Dina Titus (NV)
Phone: (202) 225-3252, (202) 225-3252, (202) 225-3252
Fax: (202) 225-2185

Congressman Steny Hoyer (MD)
Phone: (202) 225-4131, (202) 225-4131, (202) 225-4131
Fax: (202) 225-4300

Congressman Collin Peterson (MN)
Phone: (202) 225-2165, (202) 225-2165, (202) 225-2165
Fax: (202) 225-1593

Congressman Jason Altmire (PA)
Phone: (202) 225-2565, (202) 225-2565, (202) 225-2565
Fax: (202) 226-2274

Congressman Bobby Bright (AL)
Phone: (202) 225-2901, (202) 225-2901, (202) 225-2901
Fax: (202) 225-8913

Congressman Chris Carney (PA)
Phone: (202) 225-3731, (202) 225-3731, (202) 225-3731
Fax: (202) 225-9594

Congressman Travis Childers (MS)
Phone: (202) 225-4306, (202) 225-4306, (202) 225-4306
Fax: (202) 225-3549

Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper (PA)
Phone: (202) 225-5406, (202) 225-5406, (202) 225-5406
Fax: (202) 225-3103

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (AZ)
Phone: (202) 225-2542, (202) 225-2542, (202) 225-2542
Fax: (202) 225-0378

Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (SD)
Phone: (202) 225-2801, (202) 225-2801, (202) 225-2801
Fax: (202) 225-5823

Congressman Glenn Nye (VA)
Phone: (202) 225-4215, (202) 225-4215, (202) 225-4215
Fax: (202) 225-4218

Congressman Harry Mitchell (AZ)
Phone: (202) 225-2190, (202) 225-2190, (202) 225-2190
Fax: (202) 225-3263

Congressman Walt Minnick (ID)
Phone: (202) 225-6611, (202) 225-6611, (202) 225-6611
Fax: (202) 225-3029

Congressman Jim Marshall (GA)
Phone: (202) 225-6531, (202) 225-6531, (202) 225-6531
Fax: (202) 225-3013

Congressman Frank Kratovil, Jr. (MD)
Phone: (202) 225-5311, (202) 225-5311, (202) 225-5311
Fax: (202) 225-0254

Congressman Mike Ross (AR)
Phone: (202) 225-3772, (202) 225-3772
Fax: (202) 225-1314

Congressman John Barrow (GA)
Phone: (202) 225-2823, (202) 225-2823, (202) 225-2823
Fax: (202) 225-3377

The North Lake Tea Party, however, has picked up the ball and is going to replay the DVD from the District 8 Candidate Forum held in Celebration a couple weeks ago.

To clear up confusion from a previous email that went out from the North Lake Tea Party, however, Dan Fanelli, Todd Long and Patricia Sullivan were the candidates that expressed interest in attending.

NOTE: Candidates are still welcome to attend, for no charge, and will be given time to speak.

The event will be held at 6PM at the Tavares Civic Center (map):
100 East Caroline Street
Tavares, FL 32778

The enemies of freedom are at it again!  They are preparing to call Tallahssee and fight against an issue very important to the Tea Party movement.

SCR 10 and it’s campanion bill in the house HCR 8001 (Balanced Budget Amendment Convention) are scheduled for the Rules committee Monday and dark forces are trying to stop us. Now is the time to prove you are NOT a sunshine patriot. These bills call for a constitutional convention to propose a balanced budget amendment if Congress won’t.

The enemies of freedom will tell you that at a convention delegates could amend any part of the constitution. The fact remains that 38 states would still have to approve of the amendment before it would become law. So the argument is 34 states call a convention for a balanced budget amendment and they do somethjng completely different and “dangerous to our freedom” and then 38 states are going to say, “Well, that isn’t what we wanted, but hell let’s pass it anyway!”?  I dont’ think so.

Tea Party groups from all over the state have been fighting for this all session long and we are not going to let it fail now because of a smear campaign by liberals and other freedom haters. ACT NOW! This bill HCR 8001 is in Rules committee Monday night at 6:30. Melt the phone lines of these members and remind them that tea partiers will be watching this vote and remember it in November. 

Be sure to check out the official FAQ’s toward the bottom of this blog post.  Here are a few key points for consideration:

• This bill was filed by the Speaker of the House, shouldn’t the ONLY bill the Speaker filed be heard on the floor?
• 38 states would need to approve of ANY amendment to the constitution proposed by the Convention. 
• It doesn’t make sense that they would approve an amendment that is contrary to the porpose of the convention.  

It’s time to work patriots! As always BE POLITE BUT FIRM!

Bill Galvano (chair) 850-488-4086
Ellyn Bogdanoff 850-488-0635
Sandy Adams 850-488-0468
Gary Aubuchon 850-488-7433
Eduardo Gonzalez 850-488-1683
Adam Hasner 850-488-1993
Marcelo Llorente 850-488-5047
Carlos Lopez-Cantera 850-488-4202
Ron Reagan 850-921-7747
David Rivera 850-488-7897
Baxter Troutman 850-488-9465
Will Weatherford 850-488-5744

(Excerpt below is from BalanceOurBudgetNow.com, .pdf link):

What would Reagan Do?

Letter from President Ronald Reagan to Montana State Senators urging them to consider applications for an amendments convention.

 Circa, January 1987

“It has now become obvious that without further State initiatives Congress will not act to impose a limit on its own spending.  I therefore believe that further action by the States, and particularly by the Montana Legislature, in petitioning Congress to call for a constitutional convention for the sole purpose of writing a balanced budget amendment will go far towards convincing Congress to pass and submit to the States an amendment for this purpose.  If your effort is successful, Montana would be the 33rd State to pass such a resolution, just one short of the 34 required to call a constitutional convention.  I believe this may finally convince Congress to act on an amendment of its own, which has always been my goal.”

Statement by President Reagan’s Principal Deputy Press Secretary Speaking on behalf of President Reagan during a press conference, urging passage of a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

March 26, 1986

The failure of Congress to respond to the manifest desire of the American people for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution leaves the matter in the hands of the States. It remains the President’s hope that Congress will act responsibly to pass a balanced budget amendment, avoiding the need for a constitutional convention. If Congress does not act soon, the States will have no choice.

The President urges Congress to set aside its free-spending habits and to promptly act to propose a balanced budget amendment before the supporters of such an amendment have no other course than to pursue petitioning the remaining State legislatures.

President Reagan discusses the push for an amendments convention in a weekly radio address to the American people.

May 23, 1987

[Congress] has been returning to its old ways and forgetting the solemn promises it made under this law [Gramm-Rudman].  That’s why I’m one of those Americans who has always believed a constitutional amendment, mandating that Congress balance the budget, is the answer to what ails us.  And we’ve tried to get such an amendment through the Congress so that the state legislatures could vote on it.

This reluctance by the Congress has inspired a number of Americans to try another method provided for in the Constitution, a constitutional convention, on with delegates from each state, who could propose a balanced budget amendment, and then send it on to the state legislatures for approval.  Only two more states are needed to call such a convention.  And believe me, if the Congress continues to balk at passing the balanced budget amendment, I think the drive for a constitutional convention will pick up steam.

President Reagan further discussing a possible amendments convention in a televised Oval Office Address outlining his administration’s agenda.

August 12, 1987

The Congressional budget process is neither reliable nor credible-in short, it needs to be fixed.

We desperately need the power of a constitutional amendment to help us balance the budget.  Over 70 percent of the American people want such an amendment.  They want the Federal Government to have what 44 state governments already have…discipline.

If the Congress continues to oppose the wishes of the people by avoiding a vote on our balanced-budget amendment, the call for a constitutional convention will grow louder.  The prospect for a constitutional convention is only two states away from approval, and, one way or another, the will of the people always prevails. 

What would Lincoln do?

 President Lincoln endorsing the power of the people to amend the Constitution through an amendments convention, during his 1^st Inaugural Address.

 March 4, 1861

“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it…I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept of refuse.”

The following FAQ’s are from the BalanceOurBudgetNow.com website (.pdf version). 

FAQ – Article V Amendments Convention

Where does the power for the States to call a Convention come from?
Article V of the United States Constitution states “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”[1] 

Is an Amendment Convention the same thing as a “Constitutional Convention?”
The more usual expression, “Constitutional Convention,” is something of a misnomer. As we have seen, Article V does not suggest a complete re-writing of the Constitution.  It allows only a “Convention for proposing Amendments.” It is possible for a proposed Amendment to change certain sections of the Constitution (as has happened throughout U.S. history when Congress has amended the Constitution).  However, the intended purpose is not to create a new Constitution. “Amendments Convention” is a more accurate description of the Article V procedure. 

Can the Amendments Convention be limited in scope?
That is up to the States.  Historically, States have limited calls for an Amendments Convention to specific purposes.[2]  Most recently, States have been calling for an Amendments Convention for the limited purpose of balancing the federal budget.  Furthermore, once at the Convention, if a State only wanted to hear the matter of a limited purpose, such as a Balanced Budget Amendment, and at the Convention other States brought up amending anything unorthodox and radical, a state’s legislature could arguably rescind its application to prevent debate on the matter.  

Has the United States held an Amendments Convention since the Constitutions inception?
No, although over 700 applications have been sent to Congress calling for an Amendments Convention to deal with a number of proposed amendments. The closest the States have ever come to realizing a Convention was in the late 70s and 80s, when the nation was just two states short of the necessary two-thirds needed to call for a Balanced Budget Amendments Convention. The prospect of a Convention was enough to convince Congress to pass the (ineffective) Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act in 1985.  Some other examples of Congress acting due to pressure from States filing applications for an Amendments Convention are: (1) The Bill of Rights (Congress proposed The Bill of Rights upon a threat of a second convention.)  (2) The 17^th Amendment – Direct election of Senators. (3) The 22^nd Amendment – Presidential Term Limits. (4) The 21^st Amendment – Ending Prohibition (Note: just a handful of applications facilitated this.) (5) The 25^th Amendment – Presidential Succession (Note: only three applications facilitated this).[3]

What are the steps in the process of calling and conducting an Amendments Convention?
Applications would need to be received by Congress from two-thirds of the States (34 States).  Note:  Since 1789 no convention call has overcome this hurdle.  Congress would then need to call the Convention.  The safeguards in this process are (1) Congress will establish convention procedures that could ensure a Convention would not go beyond its mandate and (2) the Supreme Court can rule on the inevitable legal challenges.[4] Then, States would select delegates to attend the Convention on their behalf.  Delegates would almost certainly mirror the current political make-up of the States, thus minimizing the risks posed by radical elements.[5]  Then, the Convention itself would take place.  The intense focus of the media, coupled with the checks and balances provided by Congress, the delegates, and the ratification requirement, would eliminate any realistic prospect of factionalism or radicalism.[6]  Finally, the Amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the States (38).  

What is a “runaway” Convention?  Did the first Convention “run away?”
A “runaway” Convention is one at which delegates exceed the mandate of their state governments, and propose amendments beyond the original scope of their stated purpose.  The Philadelphia Convention did not “run away.”  Following the War of Independence, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation which proved to be ineffective in resolving conflicts between the states due to the lack of a central government.  The Founding Fathers called a Convention specifying that the Convention would have “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of the Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union.”[7]  The Founders may not have originally envisioned the creation of a new Constitution, but the Constitution that ended up being proposed by the Philadelphia Convention was faithful to the letter and spirit of the original mandate, and has served our nation well for over 220 years. 

Didn’t James Madison argue against ever having another Convention?
No. James Madison, commonly called the “Father of the Constitution,” helped write Article V, which expressly makes provision for Amendment Conventions. Critics of Conventions often quote Madison’s words, “Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention . . . I should tremble for the result of a second,” taken from the founder’s personal correspondence in 1788 with one G.L. Turberville. [8] To interpret this private hyperbole as a carte blanche condemnation of Amendment Conventions is to ignore important historical and psychological context.  Madison naturally was weary at the prospect of a second Convention, so soon after the first one had concluded, and before the States had themselves even ratified the Constitution.  Madison was adamant that our union be maintained by the States ratifying the Constitution that was formed at the first Convention.  However, the fact remains that Madison, as one of the writers of the Constitution, included Article V in the Constitution which allows for States to call for an Amendments Convention when in the course of human events it becomes necessary. 

Should we fear a “runaway Convention?” 
No.  We have a runaway Congress already!  Over the past several years, our elected representatives (of both political parties) have proven themselves politically incompetent and fiscally irresponsible. Some have said that the fears of a runaway convention are akin to refusing to extinguish a fire for fear of what harm the chemicals in the extinguisher might cause.  Delegates to an Amendments Convention would be selected by the people of their state, and so will almost certainly, in the aggregate, represent the political mainstream. The United States Congress and Supreme Court would also provide the necessary checks and balances against a Convention which exceeded its mandated scope. Finally, in the event some aberrant proposal does pass congressional and/or judicial scrutiny, it would have to be approved by the people of at least 38 states. As we can see, Article V provides the necessary checks and balances, in order to weed out any truly radical proposals. 

The powers of a Convention are the same powers Congress has right now and always has had.
Powers at a convention are nothing more than the power that Congress has every day.   Right now Congress could propose an Amendment to the Constitution which would alter or eliminate the Bill of Rights.  It could pass an Amendment saying we no longer have a right to free speech or to own a gun.  If Congress or a Convention ever did pass something so radical, it would still need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 states), which is why nothing radical has or ever will be part of the United States Constitution.

 Built in Safeguards to Avoid a “Runaway Convention,”[9] 

What is the likelihood of a Convention ever being called?
History teaches us that the likelihood of a Convention is low, but the likelihood of action by Congress in response to the imminent prospects of a Convention is high. Congress will more than likely avert a Convention by proposing the amendment themselves, before the number of state-petitions reaches two-thirds. 

The Convention process is a slow one.
The many steps and many people needed to actually trigger a Convention would, at several critical junctures, arouse scrutiny by the media, the public, think tanks, politicians, and academics.  The proposals would be debated vigorously. Politics would take over – and slow the process down. 

Congress and the Supreme Court will check and balance any radical excess.
Congress could check any radical excess by creating procedural safeguards prior to the start of the Amendments Convention to ensure a Convention did not go beyond its mandate.  Furthermore, the Supreme Court would almost certainly overturn the proposal of any Convention which exceeded its delegated mandate. 

The States would have to ratify any proposed amendment.
Thirty-eight states would have to ratify any amendment which was proposed by an Amendments Convention. This is a monumental hurdle ensuring no radical legislation would be approved by such a broad consensus. 

The limited purpose proposal.
Congress will more than likely codify the limited purpose proposed by the States.  Even if they do not it could still be possible for States to rescind their application and therefore refuse to go beyond the means of the original mandate (if it was ever proposed).

Delegates.
The number and character of the delegates chosen would make it difficult for any one faction or radical viewpoint to emerge.  The process by which delegates are selected by the states would likely be a similar process to the elections we have now.  It would be difficult, if near impossible, for a radical or a newcomer to politics to enter as a candidate.  An Amendments Convention is unlikely to bring oppression, as the vast majority of American citizens are committed to the principles and values that the United States has stood to protect in every generation.[10]

In sum: There are so many procedural safeguards in place and so many political pressures that will bear on the process, that an Amendments Convention is an inherently conservative enterprise.  No amendment will survive the process unless it enjoys strong bipartisan support and a broad national consensus.  Furthermore, pressure from the States could well press a responsible Congress into action to propose a balanced budget Amendment.  This road is not to be taken lightly, nor should an Amendment be proposed for light and transient causes. However, unfunded mandates, insurmountable debt, and unconscionable spending have put our economic future at risk.  It is not only the right, but the duty of the several States to use every tool at their disposal to restore the nation’s financial greatness.  Applying to Congress for a balanced budget Amendments Convention is the next step to declare our independence from debt and ensure the blessings of liberty for generations to come.

---

[1] United States Constitution – Article V.
[2] Caplan, Russell L. Constitutional Brinksmanship. Amending the Constitution by National Convention. 1988. Pages 95-107.
[3] Weber, Paul J and Perry, Barbara A.  Unfounded Fears.  Myths and Realities of a Constitutional Convention.  1989.  Page 68 & 75.
[4] Ibid. Page 8.
[5] Ibid. Pages 112-115.
[6] Ibid.   Page viii and Page 8.
[7] cf. James Madison, The Federalist No. 40
[8] Weber, Paul J and Perry, Barbara A.  Unfounded Fears.  Myths and Realities of a Constitutional Convention.  1989.  Page 5.
[9]  Ibid. Pages 8, and 115-118.
[10] Ibid. Page 10.