Upholding America's Constitution - No Constitutional Convention - Action Required!

A Day In The Park: The Answer to 1984 is 1776 Video Contest Entry

We have been engaged the last few weeks on opposing any Resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention for any purpose. The American Constitution has stood the test of time. Our Constitution states that ‘We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America’.

We have allowed our Constitution to be diluted by voting into office men without moral fiber who follow their own agenda. Men like Obama who, even though he professes to be a constitutional lawyer, understands absolutely nothing about the character of our Founding Fathers. I cannot repeat enough that we are living in perilous times. That even with all the knowledge, technology and information available we make morally destructive choices. Our Constitution outlines with its seven articles our structure of government. In a perfect world our Constitution would be adhered to making for an ideal system. But it is not a perfect world. It has always been our responsibility to safeguard our liberties. Men exercising the power we entrusted to them with our vote have slowly diminished our Constitution. Regardless our Constitution is the most magnificent document ever created. We must never forget that this document has made us the light of the world.

Today we are faced with many challenges including the destructive instant gratification mentality. This instant gratification mentality has spellbound some of our politicians because they are focused on a Constitutional Convention to ‘fix’ the Constitution. There are some Texas politicians who are demanding this ‘quick fix’ to financially stabilize our nation. It would be wise for these politicians to learn from past experience. The Texas Constitutional Convention of 1974 did not end well. It was both a financial loss of three Billion dollars and after seven months of debate it failed to produce a document to present to the Texas people.

We elected the politicians who made the bad choices in voting for the financial mess we are in today. In this last election we took a major step by removing many elected officials who made bad choices. With an eye to our 2012 elections, we hope to finish the job we started in 2010. By doing this, the elected officials we vote for in 2012 will pass laws that will put America back on track. If you open the Constitution to any change you open the Constitution to endless amendments. Hence, an opening for Pro Choice , Pro Life, LGBT, Environmentalists, Animal Rights, Gun Rights advocates and Gun Rights opponents, Labor Unions, Islamists, and Sharia Law, etc. Now who do you suppose will control the Convention if we decide to drop out because it is not going our way? The Labor Unions are the puppeteers of so many, or maybe the Environmentalists? It seems to me that this would be a perfect opportunity for all those hating America to unite and transform America…just what Obama planned. Oh yes…whose side is the MSM on?

There are two kinds of risk takers: those that jump before looking and those that look and then jump. What ‘window of opportunity’ are they looking through? It would be a travesty if the results would dissolve our present Constitution or further dilute its strength on a ‘bluff’ or to ‘scare’ the US Congress. We only hold the majority in the House but NOT in the Senate or the WH. We should do what is right for America, not what is politically right for the politician. We must stand strong, fight to save our Constitution, and begin adhering to it.

Chief Justice Burger on the Constitutional Convention
Supreme Court of the United States

Washington, D.C. 20543

June 22, 1983

Chambers of
Chief Justice Burger

Dear Phyllis:

I am glad to respond to your inquiry about a proposed Article V Constitutional Convention. I have been asked questions about this topic many times during my news conferences and at college meetings since I became chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, and I have repeatedly replied that such a convention would be a grand waste of time.

I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we dont like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose."
With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.
Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a "miracle." Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention. In these bicentennial years, we should be celebrating its long life, not challenging its very existence. Whatever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments.
Warren Burger

Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly


James Madison letter to G Turberville, 2 November 1788

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 appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which lias already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union, might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances, it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. 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 of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?

If you would like to watch the committee hearings in action, you can view them on the Internet by going to the legislatures website:


Please contact the following Committee members and tell them NO to a Constitutional Convention



Select Committee on State Sovereignty

Rep. Brandon Creighton (R) – Chairman – District 16
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0726
Fax: 512-463-8428
Email [email protected]

Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer (D) – Vice Chair – District 116
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0616
Fax: 512-463-4873
Email [email protected]

Rep. Dan Branch (R) – Member -- District 10
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0367
Fax: 512-322-9935
Email [email protected]

Rep. Drew Darby (R) -- Member -- District 72
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0331
Fax: 512-463-5896 or 512-463-0517 or 325-659-3762
Email [email protected]

Rep. Sid Miller – (R) Member -- District 59
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0628
Fax: 512-463-3644
Email [email protected]

Rep. Jim Pitts – (R) Member -- District 10
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0516
Fax: 512-463-1051
Email [email protected]

Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D) – Member -- District 141
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0720
Fax: 512-463-6306
Email [email protected]


Make sure to check out the comments on Facebook.

This is a rebuttal to Ms. Harris and her comments regarding an Article V Convention. For those only interested in a quick summation, Ms. Harris has either deliberately lied or intentionally misled those reading her "evidence" as to why a convention should not be held and public record irrefutably proves this. The question then becomes: should people listen to Ms. Harris who can't even provide truthful evidence to back up her allegations and more importantly, do people want to establish the government can veto the Constitution? This last question is paramount for at its heart that is the argument of Ms. Harris. She is urging the government not obey the Constitution and that citizens support this. She offers no method or guarantee whereby the government can or will only violate this one provision of the Constitution--only that it must occur because it is a "risk."

The details regarding the false evidence are as follows:

First as to the so-called "Burger Letter." Please note the date of the letter and the fact Burger is "retired." As discussed in greater detail at http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/FAQ.htm#Q08.6 there are several things "wrong" with the letter. The most glaring example is that 1983, Burger was not "retired" from the Supreme Court. There is more, but length of this reply dictates brevity and the simple fact the letter could not have been written by Burger in 1983 as a "retired" judge is sufficient to prove it is a phoney. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger . Burger served as Chief Justice until 1986, a fact easily verifiable in  public record.

The second point which is also discussed in more detail at this site is the fact that Burger publicly supported an Article V Convention and he did not fear it as stated in this letter. In short, the public record refutes Mr. Harris and her so-called "Burger Letter." Ms. Harris obviously would be aware of these facts about the letter and questions surrounding it. She is obviously trying to pull a fast one.

As to her second "evidence" of the Madison letter. Historic record proves her conclusion is a lie. If you read http://www.nolanchart.com/article8410.html you will find that historic record shows that Madison was discussing Article VII in his letter, not Article V and that he was merely reflecting a position he had taken at the 1787 convention months before in his comments. Again, a simple reference to a universally recognized historic record, Farrand's Records of the 1787 Federal Convention would have shown the truth but Ms. Harris chose instead to attempt to twist history for her own personal agenda.

The question is: should such an important question be decided based on false evidence? I think not. I suggest all go to www.foavc.org and read the over 700 applications from 49 states and study the FAQ section. Learn the truth about a convention. Then realize how many lies Ms. Harris has told about it. Then support a part of our Constitution just like all the rest of it. The states have applied; the Constitution mandates a convention call. It is as simple as that.

First let me say that I did not deliberately lie nor am I trying to pull a fast one.  For you to make that assertion gives me much insight to your character.  Second YES I do have an agenda just as you have an agenda.  Mine is forthright.  It is my opinion that we should NOT have an Article V or a CONCON which ever you wish to call it.  Your opinion is that we should.  As an American citizen I have the right to my opinion as you do.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

In my article I never mentioned that we did not have a ‘right’ to such a Constitutional Convention.  Having a privilege to do something does not necessarily mean that we should.    


On Justice Warren Burger’s letter dated June 22, 1983, retired means he is now retired. Please read the following letters by Justice Burger.











The ratification of the conventions of 9 states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same. 


Article VII refers to the FIRST constitution and the convention that established it. 


I am well aware of the many applications for a Constitutional Convention from the combined states.  I am also aware that they failed due to agreeing on a single subject.  You may have information on this that I may not be aware of.

I quoted <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Madison’s letter written to G Turberville, 2 November 1788.  From your rebuttal it seems you were not aware of this letter.

Federalist NO 85 written by Andrew Hamilton states in his very last sentence, “I dread the more the consequences of new attempts, because I know that powerful individuals, in this and in other States, are enemies to a general national government in every possible shape.”

I do not check everyone’s ‘opinion’ on the subject of a CONCON or an Article V convention as you call it because we are all entitled to have one…even you. 




© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy