From: Ken Ivory Subject: Fwd: Oppose Article V Conventions Date: February 22, 2016 at 9:43:37 AM EST To: Candace Daly , Mark Meckler Can you get someone to write a response for me to this constituent? I'm sure we can use it as a template for others getting such questions. Ken Begin forwarded message: From: Nathan Brown Date: February 22, 2016 at 7:34:47 AM MST To: Ken Ivory Subject: Re: Oppose Article V Conventions Yes, naive. Here are a few questions that I would like you to answer: 1) As a representative of the people, “who” has petitioned you to pursue this course? 2) I say “naive” because just like in 1787 the “rules” of the Con-Con changed, and suddenly the ratification process was different, so my question to you is: Do you really suppose that 3/4 of the States will have to ratify any amendment? Do you really believe that the process for enacting law will not change from what Article V currently calls for? 3) I imagine we would both admit that the current Constitution is NOT being followed, so why move to a Con-Con versus moving to the constitution that we currently have? If you don’t believe that our current representatives are capable of enacting the real change that we all want, then HOW IN THE WORLD CAN WE EXPECT THAT A CON-CON WILL DO ANY BETTER? * Consider who is “running” the show, and who will present amendments to be ratified… Is that something you are comfortable with? Of course there are MANY other questions I hope to ask, but would love to hear back on these three, and still encourage you to review the hour JBS clip that I sent earlier in this string. Nathan Brown Vice President O: 801.274.9235 ext 108 C: 801.244.4277 F: 801.274.6778 nate@xcelfitness.com On Feb 21, 2016, at 11:38 PM, Ken Ivory wrote: Naive? To follow the express language of the Constitution? What alternative do you propose to override federal overreach if not the constitutional remedy expressly provided by the founders? Ken On Feb 21, 2016, at 10:51 PM, Nate Brown wrote: Ken, Come on now, you really can't be that naive can you? Nathan Brown, B.S. Vice President O: 801.274.9235 ext 108 C: 801.244.4277 F: 801.274.6778 nate@xcelfitness.com On Feb 21, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Ken Ivory wrote: You think Congress is going to reign in Congress? Seriously? The proposed constitution in 1787 was sent to the people by Congress, NOT the constitutional convention, and the People -- the ultimate sovereign -- ratified it. On Feb 21, 2016, at 10:14 PM, Nate Brown wrote: Ken, Where your intention is correct, the solution you propose is 100% wrong. Just that simple. Article V of the Constitution is clear about the two ways to pass amendments. Also clear is what happened in 1787 when the Constitution was written. The convention to amend the Articles of Confederation wrote an entirely new Constitution, which was outside of its scope. Ratification rules were rewritten in order to ensure passage. Are we confident that the Constitution would not be rewritten and ratification rules not thrown out? The John Birch Society stands opposed to calling for a convention, but supports amending the Constitution through Congress. However, the better solution is to obey the Constitution to rein in the federal government, not amend a document that is ignored. I imagine you could find an hour to listen to the following on your way to and from the office: http://youtu.be/If0IXYj7jNY I look forward to your review and insight. I'll look for your reply! Nathan Brown, B.S. Vice President O: 801.274.9235 ext 108 C: 801.244.4277 F: 801.274.6778 nate@xcelfitness.com On Feb 21, 2016, at 7:37 PM, Ken Ivory wrote: Nathan, Washington is out of control and undermining the rule of law in our nation with congress running our debt toward $20 trillion, federal agencies criminalizing virtually every aspect of American’s daily lives, a president who is unilaterally legislating with his phone and pen, and a supreme court that is no longer just calling balls and strikes but has entered the field of play legislating from the bench. The Founders included a remedy to override such foreseeable federal overreach in the Constitution in Article V, which provides two different methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution (1) congress can propose amendments, and (2) upon the application of 2/3 of the states congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments. If amendments are proposed under either method, the proposals must be ratified by the supermajority of 3/4ths of the states. Please see this explanation recently given by Texas Governor Greg Abbott in connection with his call for a convention of states to propose 9 specific amendments to put teeth in the Tenth Amendment. http://gov.texas.gov/news/pressrelease/21829 I agree with Gov. Abbott but would add a 10th proposal - The United States shall not own more than 15% of the land in a State without the express consent of the State Legislature with the governor concurring. I have sworn an oath to uphold the entire Constitution. Article V is the constitutional remedy the founders established to override federal overreach. It is time we put the federal government back into the constitutional box it came in. Best regards, Ken On 2/21/16, 2:10 PM, "Nathan Brown" wrote: Dear Representative Ivory, Why in the WORLD do you feel your Bill calling for a constitutional convention is sound??? http://www.jbs.org/stopa-constitutionalconvention-actiontools/item/download/3115_8014b9086f088132d3b22d70ddad8151 There's a very important issue that is becoming more and more prominent in state legislatures in recent years. It goes by several names, such as an Article V convention, a constitutional convention (often abbreviated as a ConCon), or a convention of the states. All of these terms refer to a provision in Article V of the U.S. Constitution whereby if two-thirds of the states apply to Congress for a national convention for proposing amendments, then Congress shall call such a convention. Here are the three reasons why I oppose all applications for an Article V convention, including a BBA Article V convention, at this time in our nation's history: 1. The Constitution is not the problem. 2. All Article V conventions would have the inherent power to be runaway conventions. To their great credit, most state legislators have voted down most Article V convention applications over the past thirty years, based on their belief that such a convention could easily become a "runaway convention" that could make harmful changes to the Constitution. In truth, all Article V conventions would have the inherent power to be "runaway conventions" that could propose harmful revisions to the Constitution as well as provide for new methods for ratification that would increase the likelihood that the harmful revisions would be adopted. 3. An Article V convention would enable powerful special interests to revise the Constitution in their favor. In order to secure our freedom, an informed electorate must be created that will roll back the power of the special interests by electing federal and state representatives who will enforce the Constitution as originally intended. For more information: http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/31053009ConAlecReprintweb.pdf Reasons for opposing a BBA Article V convention: http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/3119Con-Con-reprintweb.pdf A reply from your office is demanded at this time. Sincerely, Nathan Brown 1353 W 8580 S West Jordan, UT 84088