Thankfully a vote for a Con Con has been defeated.
Sue Long sends:
Hooray ! The vote for a call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con ) was defeated in the VA House of Delegates.Happily Keith Hodges voted against HJ565 which called for a Con Con although he had been leaning toward being for a Con Con so your contacts made the difference in causing him to reconsider. And the vote was close - we won by only 3 votes, Keith's being one so it was a critical vote.We need to let him know that we appreciate his vote.And, since Rob Bell is running for office you may want to know that he did vote for a Con Con.This should end the issue - and you deserve a big pat on the back - however, our work is still not finished. We need to write to Governor McDonnell at Robert.F.McDonnell@governor.virginia.gov and tell him why it is a good thing that the bill was not passed. What happened last year was that after the bill died in the Assembly , he tried to get it introduced again, but the Democrats controlled the Committee that could do so, and they refused to bring it up for a vote. We don't want a replay with a different result.In case some of you are still not sure where you stand on the issue, here are some answers to misconceptions.It would be a good thing to call a Con for the purpose of only voting on a Balanced Budget Amendment. Or a different version of the same premise is that delegates can only vote on a Balanced Budget.There are no rules for what is voted on once the Con Con is convened. The chairperson only has to say - We will not vote on a Balance Budget. All in favor say Aye. The Ayes have it. Next.But, we can still have a balanced budget. Congress could pass one at any time. Furthermore since Congress doesn't abide by the Constitution that we already have, why would we think that they would abide by this amendment? And, even if they did and couldn't agree on spending cuts, then it would be mandatory to raise taxes.Whatever is decided at the Con Con has to be approved by three-fourths of the states.Once again only if that is what the Con Con decides. It could be a half of the states, or a third of the Congress or no one. This happened at the 1787 Con Con. The rule authority of that day. The Articles of Confederation, stated that all the states had to ratify but the Con Con changed it to three-fourths.The Con Con is a good idea otherwise it would not be in the Constitution.Many founding fathers believed that the Constitution would only work in a society of religious and moral electorate. Would the preponderant number of people at a Con Con today be considered religious and moral? And, even in 1787 not all the founding fathers agreed that a Con Con. was a good idea. There was give and take and some gave in on that issue in order to gain on another. George Mason attended the Con Con but wouldn't sign off on the Constitution and spoke out against a Con Con. Patriot extraordinaire, Patrick Henry, was voted to be a delegate to the Con Con but would not even attend. He favored states sovereignty and feared a too powerful federal government.Thank you to the Pro Con Cons for reconsidering your viewpoint - and to all who kept the bill from passing the GA House.And, please consider a note to Governor McDonnell , not condemning him for his actions last year, but just along the lines of how great it is that the pro Con Con bill didn't pass this year and the reasons why it isn't a good idea.Many thanks to all, Sue Long.
--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (Peninsula-Patriots-list@meetup.com)
This message was sent by DeWitt Edwards (l_edwards@verizon.net) from Peninsula Patriots.
To learn more about DeWitt Edwards, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages
Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | support@meetup.com
No comments:
Post a Comment