GOA Alert: Stop Constitutional Convention in PA Senate

**vfinnell** · September 26th, 2021, 03:59 PM

The Senate State Government Committee will be voting on two resolutions on Tuesday that would call for an Article V Constitutional Convention. These conventions are a great danger to your Second Amendment rights. Please follow the link to GOA's alert and send a message to your state senator to oppose SR 67 and SR 152.

https://pennsylvania.gunowners.org/09262021/

**Brick** · September 26th, 2021, 04:39 PM

Done!

**n1fhpa** · September 26th, 2021, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by vfinnell

The Senate State Government Committee will be voting on two resolutions on Tuesday that would call for an Article V Constitutional Convention. These conventions are a great danger to your Second Amendment rights. Please follow the link to GOA's alert and send a message to your state senator to oppose SR 67 and SR 152.

https://pennsylvania.gunowners.org/09262021/

Hello,

I disagree with your post and the 9 year old article. This is for an article 5 convention of states, not a constitutional convention; there is a stark difference.

This is the second amendment process in article V, the first amendment process is congress, the framers installed the second amendment process for the states. This convention of states is no more a threat to the 2A than congress.

It is no different than method one where congress proposes and votes on amendments. So, you think that this process should also be removed from congress then, correct? Should article 5 be deleted completely? Why would we leave the article V amendment power only to congress?

A no vote is exactly what the democrats want, hence the misinformation of a con con.. With our current voting system there is a possibility that the democrats could get 290 in the house and 67 senators, propose bad amendments and pass them. We have the possibility of having 33 republican states. You are supporting purposely giving up states rights, our only recourse.

It is very important that this vote is yes. I am really upset by your post, and I am a GOA member and supporter.
At the very least you should change the heading to accurately reflect what is being voted on. Very disappointing.

Read what is written, not someone's "interpretation".

Article V

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.

I thank you for taking some time to reconsider your position. I'm sorry but your "hijacking" hypothesis is not correct. I welcome the details of the argument for your position and where it came from.

Regards,
John

**Walleye Hunter** · September 26th, 2021, 06:40 PM

Is this a state matter or a federal one? Katie Muth is a state senator and I don*t think she carries any weight on federal issues. She is who my objection went to.

**icp4life162005** · September 26th, 2021, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by n1fhpa

Hello,

I disagree with your post and the 9 year old article. This is for an article 5 convention of states, not a constitutional convention; there is a stark difference.

This is the second amendment process in article V, the first amendment process is congress, the framers installed the second amendment process for the states. This convention of states is no more a threat to the 2A than congress.

It is no different than method one where congress proposes and votes on amendments. So, you think that this process should also be removed from congress then, correct? Should article 5 be deleted completely? Why would we leave the article V amendment power only to congress?

A no vote is exactly what the democrats want, hence the misinformation of a con con.. With our current voting system there is a possibility that the democrats could get 290 in the house and 67 senators, propose bad amendments and pass them. We have the possibility of having 33 republican states. You are supporting purposely giving up states rights, our only recourse.

It is very important that this vote is yes. I am really upset by your post, and I am a GOA member and supporter.
At the very least you should change the heading to accurately reflect what is being voted on. Very disappointing.

Read what is written, not someone's "interpretation".

Article V

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.

I thank you for taking some time to reconsider your position. I'm sorry but your "hijacking" hypothesis is not correct. I welcome the details of the argument for your position and where it came from.

Regards,
John

And why exactly does it need to be edited?

What needs changed or added according to you?

**vfinnell** · September 26th, 2021, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by n1fhpa

Hello,

I disagree with your post and the 9 year old article. This is for an article 5 convention of states, not a constitutional convention; there is a stark difference.

This is the second amendment process in article V, the first amendment process is congress, the framers installed the second amendment process for the states. This convention of states is no more a threat to the 2A than congress.

It is no different than method one where congress proposes and votes on amendments. So, you think that this process should also be removed from congress then, correct? Should article 5 be deleted completely? Why would we leave the article V amendment power only to congress?

A no vote is exactly what the democrats want, hence the misinformation of a con con.. With our current voting system there is a possibility that the democrats could get 290 in the house and 67 senators, propose bad amendments and pass them. We have the possibility of having 33 republican states. You are supporting purposely giving up states rights, our only recourse.

It is very important that this vote is yes. I am really upset by your post, and I am a GOA member and supporter.
At the very least you should change the heading to accurately reflect what is being voted on. Very disappointing.

Read what is written, not someone's "interpretation".

Article V

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.

I thank you for taking some time to reconsider your position. I'm sorry but your "hijacking" hypothesis is not correct. I welcome the details of the argument for your position and where it came from.

Regards,
John

John:

GOA's position has always been to oppose an Article V Convention. In the alert that we sent, we included a letter from former Chief Justice Warren Burger who essentially said the same thing: an Article V Constitutional Convention cannot be sufficiently restrained, despite assurances to the contrary. I have inserted Chief Justice Burger's opinion below. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," was also against such a convention. While the goals of such a convention may be a good idea, convening such a convention is not.

Burger-letter-to-Schlafly.jpg

**vfinnell** · September 26th, 2021, 09:50 PM

From James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," regarding a Constitutional Convention:

"If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress*. It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides * [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts * might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric*. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America"

https://books.google.com/books?id=6GtmdUBtWboC&pg=PA130...

**n1fhpa** · September 27th, 2021, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by icp4life162005

And why exactly does it need to be edited?

What needs changed or added according to you?

No Idea what you're asking. Never said it needed to be edited.

**n1fhpa** · September 27th, 2021, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by vfinnell

From James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," regarding a Constitutional Convention:

"If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress*. It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides * [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts * might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric*. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America"

https://books.google.com/books?id=6GtmdUBtWboC&pg=PA130...

Val,

Thanks for your reply, the A V convention of states is not defined correctly by some great minds.. IMHO. We'll agree to disagree. I don't know where this fear is coming from. The convention of states has a specific purpose stated in A V, no different than the congressional process, only states vote on proposed amendments instead of congress. It is the the only tool states have to reign in a tyrannical government. If it was dangerous to our freedom the left would be screaming for it to happen, they are not because they do not want 34 states to pass this legislation and have this tool at their disposal. I am more afraid of the congressional amendment power, even more if we just give up these states rights. Best, John