Before you start your tin foil hat conspiracy finger pointing, the one question that should be on your mind is; How did we get only two states away from rewriting the Constitution with no one knowing about it until now?
A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which “today’s corrupt politicians and judges” could formally change the U.S. Constitution’s “’problematic’ provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society.”
“Don’t for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn’t revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a ‘collective’ right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights,” said the warning from the American Policy Institute.
“Additionally could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the ‘right’ to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more,’ the group said.
The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lends of current events.
“The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the state can call for a convention,” the alert said. “If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it’s a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Construction.”
Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.
Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.
Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.
The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.
In the 2001 interview, Obama said:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
As a reminder;
2nd Amendment: Right to bear arms.
4th Amendment: Protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
5th Amendment: Protection of due process, incriminating one’s self and eminent domain without “just compensation”.
10th Amendment: Protection of State’s Rights including sovereignty, freedom and independence.
And one wonders why there is a new government program to have our U.S. Army deployed in the United States……… If you have no idea what I’m talking about, Army Brigade homeland tours started October 1, 2008 in the United States.
Do you want to call only being two states away from changing the Constitution a "tin foil hat” conspiracy theory with an upcoming president that wants the Constitution changed, combined with Army Homeland Tours? Change is coming……