Home » Uncategorized » Con con rebuttal to Smith, Wolfpac

Con con rebuttal to Smith, Wolfpac

23 February 2017

Con con Rebuttal to Jason Smith Wolfpac
Rebuttal letter to Idaho Press Tribune to Jason Smith from Wolfpac:
Letter to the Editor- Idaho Press Tribune 2/23/17

Rebuttal to Jason Smith-Wolfpac

If I were slick and well-spoken enough to create a private organization that was well funded enough to sway state legislators and only a handful of their constituents event remotely paying attention to this issue, could I also call my organization a convention of states too since, as I read article 5, there is no provision for private organizations to coin the name? Could I also use my influence and money to subvert our constitution in the name of saving it and if I did, how many people would really know the difference in an era of such an ignorance, busyness or dealing with people that just don’t care?

Smith declares that Boyle and Rubel do not speak of the history and purpose of article 5, but in my view it would be better to leave it out than mislead people about it, which is what has happens once again when we look at the issues closely and critically.

Who declared COS to be the legitimate entity to run this con-con train and that defines its own language that even differs from legal references like Black’s law dictionary or any other that describes a constitutional convention?

Smith states that a convention of the states is not the same thing as a constitutional convention, my answer is who says? In my view the writer is right and wrong. Right, they are different in that COS is a private group, but are the same in that any attempt to change our constitution is done through one mode, the only mode to amend or completely replace our constitution and defined by any legal dictionary as article 5 for that purpose.

Smith adheres to the COS talking points and misleads the public where they also say that a COS can be limited, or that the delegates can’t exceed their commissions, which is also inaccurate in that Madison, in Federalist 40 writes that the delegates did, in fact, exceed their commissions. They say that the COS is only to make amendments and can in no way usher in a completely new document but history shows that because a convention is called, the convention is then the deliberative body that, in essence is superior to congress, which is why we got our constitution from an Amendments convention to amend the Articles of Confederation then using Article XIII that still required ratification.

Another thing that I find deceptive is that supporters for a con-con always say, Article 5 was meant for such a time as this, to rein in an out of control government but the problem isn’t the constitution, the problem is elected officials ignore it because in my view the people don’t know enough about our constitution to recognize whether if one voted into office will adhere to it, so the problem is not the constitution, it is either the ignorance of it or maybe something else when Sen. Coburn stated when he was here, “They [congress] do not adhere to the constitution you and I know, they adhere to a 74lb one!” Well if this is true, and they adhere to a different constitution, how then would using an Article 5 convention from one constitution be used to control a government that adheres to a completely different document?

In addition, if the big issue is the feds overspending, are the states and the people so blind that they can’t see that the 50 states combined form the union and that each year the reliance on federal funding increases and the states allow the federal abuse? If the states created the union, aren’t the states, in fact, collectively guilty of the federal abuse?

If a BBA was passed, who would enforce it and what are the provisions that they are keeping from you? What about in periods of a National emergency? Suspended! Would it help to expose that America has been under a National emergency since 1933? If this is true, why are they pushing so hard or a BBA during a period of national emergency?

Additionally, Smith uses references like the BAR association and federal bureaucracies to defend his position that a con-con as a good idea. Do you trust entities like this to preserve your liberty when both control your destiny and define their own terms? So, on one hand he exclaims federal abuse while adhering to statements of the feds in support of a con-con?

Another thing to consider is that Smith, although stating he somehow represents Wolfpac, failed to mention that the organization he represents if funded by Billionaire Global elitist George Soros, that has self admittedly collapsed countries and their economies attempting to merge the independent nations into a world government?