▶ The People Must Oppose a Balanced Budget Amendment Article V Convention – YouTube

We’ve been warning you about this freedom threat for years. We hope you’ve been doing your part to prevent  this freedom-destroyer V Convention, and trust you’ll step up your appreciated efforts. It’s in your face right now, and the RINO neocons are strongly pushing it.

Great homeschooling aid!

Published on Jan 23, 2014
Scott Bradley’s talk about why we should oppose an Article V convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment was delivered at a Council Dinner of The John Birch Society in Ohio on May 4, 2013.

For more information about The John Birch Society’s “Choose Freedom — STOP A CON-CON” action project, go to http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/no-co…


3 responses

  1. I agree. We absolutely must oppose an Article V convention. It is misleading to call it a “balanced budget” article V convention. In the first place, the Constitution already requires Congress to live within its means. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with the Constitution we have. The problem is with the politicians who won't honor their oath of office to abide by it. And finally, there is absolutely NO WAY to guarantee that something intended to “only” have a balanced budget amend ment will in actuallity be limited to that. The framers of the Constitution went to the convention with the assignment of amending the Articles of the Confederation and ended up throwing the whole thing out and writing our new Constitution instead. There is no way to insure that a convention wouldn't toss the Constitution and give us something that takes away all of our freedoms. Also, who do you think would be the delegates? Given the fact that the media controls whateveryone thinks, and that big lobbying money has as much to do with elections as the people do, you can bet that the delegates would not be Constitutional Conservatives. They would be people with the money to campaign, and that money would come from Soros type groups who have everything to gain by trashing our Constitution. And then, you might say, well, the states have to ratify it. Yup, and how many times have the states been bullied into passing legislation or accepting federal government overreach just by the thread of having federal funds denied or some other nonsense. In the current political climate, there could be no greater mistake than giving a bunsh of unknown people a chance to attack the Constitution.

  2. I'm with you on every word. Additionally, congress has nor even de-funded JUST ONE UN-CONSTITUTIONAL AGENCY! How can we expect to build a new platform of liberty with mindsets like that!

  3. “And finally, there is absolutely NO WAY to guarantee that something intended to “only” have a balanced budget amend ment will in actuallity be limited to that.”

    Sorry, that's a scary urban myth created by Bobby Kennedy to deflect backlash against JFK taking more power. The truth is that states must call for common topics to convene a convention, thereby limiting the topics. States can also direct their delegates to only cooperate on those topics and recall delegates who stray. Finally, 3/4 of the States must ratify whatever results – the guarantee that crazy stuff won't get into the Constitution.

    As for making the feds behave, eliminating unconstitutional overreach, etc., what's your better idea?

%d bloggers like this: