Con-Con Is Con? — Nineteen states have approved having a Constitutional Convention with legislation pending in another 21.
A convention lets state legislatures bypass Congress with regard to amending the Constitution and is authorized by Article V of the Constituion.
Two-thirds of the states, or 33, must approve for the convention to happen.
The convention would draft amendments which would then be returned to the states of which three-fourths, or 38, most approve for them to take effect.
Patriot groups are divided. Some think a convention would allow billionaire plutocrats to buy off delegates and rewrite the entire Constitution to their liking.
Others says a convention would be limited to the subjects of a convention’s petition, which concern generally uncontroversial things like congressional term limits, placing restraints on federal spending and limiting the the power and jurisdiction of Washington, D.C.
We are inclined to agree with those who think the event would not be dangerous as approval of three-quarters of state legislators is still required even if conventioneers go off track and the Supreme Court ignored precedent and allows it.
On the other hand, we don’t see much point in having one either.
The Supreme Court, after decades of ignoring the will of the people, have begun reining in the tyrannical behavior of the alphabet agencies, and the people are waking up to the lies of the mockingbird media, which played the role of Grima Wormtongue to their moneyed masters.
The better use of time and energy should be winning elections at all levels, returning to parents control of education, and creating a new media.
Pennsylvania Constitution Must Reading For Pennsylvania Patriots — Delaware County’s Bill Denison has been holding on-line classes regarding the Pennsylvania Constitution and generally promoting the reading of it.
To our embarrassment, reading it was not something we’ve ever done and so a few weeks ago we did.
d) Any aggrieved person may file an appeal from the final plan directly to the Supreme Court within 30 days after the filing thereof. If the appellant establishes that the final plan is contrary to law, the Supreme Court shall issue an order remanding the plan to the commission and directing the commission to reapportion the Commonwealth in a manner not inconsistent with such order.
(e) When the Supreme Court has finally decided an appeal or when the last day for filing an appeal has passed with no appeal taken, the reapportionment plan shall have the force of law and the districts therein provided shall be used thereafter in elections to the General Assembly until the next reapportionment as required under this section 17.
When the state Supreme Court ordered that Pennsylvania’s congressional districts be withdrawn in 2018, was that more or less than 30 days after they were approved on Dec. 22, 2011?
Based on the Pennsylvania Constitution, the state legislature should have immediately begun impeachment proceedings for every judge who vote aye for the new districts.
If the citizenry was aware of the what the law was they would have supported the action.
§ 14. Absentee voting.
(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner
in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors
who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the
municipality of their residence, because their duties,
occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on
the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their
proper polling places because of illness or physical disability
or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance
of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election
day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for
the return and canvass of their votes in the election district
in which they respectively reside.
(b) For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a
city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar
general purpose unit of government which may be created by the
(Nov. 5, 1957, P.L.1019, J.R.1; May 16, 1967, P.L.1048, J.R.5;
Nov. 5, 1985, P.L.555, J.R.1; Nov. 4, 1997, P.L.636, J.R.3)
1967 Amendment. Joint Resolution No.5 renumbered former
section 14 to present section 11 and amended and renumbered
former section 19 to present section 14.
1957 Amendment. Joint Resolution No.1 added present section
14 (formerly section 19).
One with knowledge of the words in Constitution would have demanded that the addition of the category of “mail -in elector” would have required amending the Constitution rather than merely changing the Election Code as per Act 77 of 2019.
Where you aware that witnesses in contested elections may not withhold testimony upon the ground that it may criminate himself or subject him to public infamy.
The Constitution is not fun reading but even skimming it and being aware of the table of contents is a significant upgrade in understanding.
Article V of the US Constitution says that a convention may be called on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several Statesfor proposing Amendments, which, . . . shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratifiedby Conventions in three fourths thereof.
This is the alternative to way that starts in Congress, and has not been used since 1787.
Now my radical friend, Scott of Vermont, sent me an article showing that West Virginia, on March 3, became the 17th state to pass a Convention of States (COS), meaning that half of the necessary 34 States now support it.
Hillary Clinton attacked, which means it should probably have been supported. What happened at the 2017 session can be found here.
Though the 2022 proposal has not yet passed the Pennsylvania Legislature, one notable Pennsylvanian, former Senator Rick Santorum is actively stumping for it “We’re at the time in America where we have to break the glass and pull the cord that says “pull here in case of emergency,” he said. “I think we have to come to that collective realization, that things are not going to get better doing what we have been doing”. This is from a speech at The National Religious Broadcasters Meeting, where he went on to say that we were seeing “authoritanism that we never saw before. We’re seeing it from both parties.”
The Convention of States website lists 64 percent of Pennsylvania voters supporting a convention.
Among the possible topics to be discussed would be congressional and Supreme Court term limits both of which are attractive to both left and right.
In the meantime, there is a bill slowly winding it’s way through the Pennsylvania Senate that would “allow voters to call for limited constitutional conventions for government reform”, regarding the Pennsylvania Constitution.
On Oct. 17, Senator John Eichelberger and Representative Stephen Bloom introduced legislation to enable a limited state constitutional convention. We are proud to count Sen. Eichelberger and Rep. Bloom as CAP members. The legislation that they’ve crafted will go a long way to reforming the dysfunctional government saddling the taxpayers of the Commonwealth. Their press statement on the legislation makes an effective case for its rational and lays out the basics of how a convention would operate:
“Pennsylvanians deserve better,” said Senator Eichelberger. “They’re fed up with the inability of the General Assembly, on the whole, to address significant deficiencies in several key areas of the state government. A limited constitutional convention could lead to significant reform and go a long way in restoring the public’s faith in a system that has been failing them.”
“Senate Bill 867, sponsored by Senator Eichelberger, and House Bill 1967, sponsored by Representative Bloom, will allow the public to vote in an upcoming election on whether or not there should be a constitutional convention limited to very specific topics. Those topics include proposed changes to the terms and size of the General Assembly; spending without an enacted budget; the office of the Lieutenant Governor; and the judiciary.
“A constitutional convention would be an opportunity for citizens who are frustrated with our broken state government to take a very direct role in historic government change,” said Representative Bloom.
If the majority of voters approve, a preparatory committee would immediately make logistical arrangements for holding the convention. The convention would consist of 163 members – three delegates elected from each of the senatorial districts and 13 other members who would consist of members of the General Assembly and be ex-officio members. Convention delegates would vote on recommended changes to the state constitution. All recommendations would require a majority vote of the 163 delegates. Proposed changes in the form of ballot questions would be placed on the ballot for final approval or rejection by the voters.
The text of the Senate bill can be found here. As Sen. Eichelberger and Rep. Bloom noted at their press conference, the scope of the convention will be limited to the Articles affecting the legislature, legislation, the executive, and judicial branch. None of the sections on basic rights of citizens (i.e. firearms) would be open for discussion. We will keep you posted about this important legislation as it progresses.