<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Bob&#039;s Blog &#187; Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bobpearcy.com/tag/speaker-of-the-house-nancy-pelosi/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bobpearcy.com</link>
	<description>The World Around Us</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:07:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>We Don&#8217;t Need or Want A Constitutional Convention</title>
		<link>http://www.bobpearcy.com/we-dont-need-or-want-a-constitutional-convention/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bobpearcy.com/we-dont-need-or-want-a-constitutional-convention/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:06:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob Pearcy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns & Gun Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Socialism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Walk with God]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Butch Otter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harry Reid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hi Bob]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[House Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberal Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Office Of The Governor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Otter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Right To Keep And Bear Arms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Second Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate Majority Leader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate Majority Leader Harry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Speaker Of The House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Of Idaho]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U S Constitution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bobpearcy.com/?p=447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I just sent this email to Gov Otter and believe everyone needs to see the following. We need to STOP obama from changing the Constitution For The United States of America To the office of the governor of the great state of Idaho, Gov Butch Otter Hi, Bob Pearcy here from Nampa, Here is email [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div dir="ltr"><strong>I just sent this email to Gov Otter and believe everyone needs to see the following. We need to STOP obama from changing the Constitution For The United States of America
</strong></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span>To the office of the governor of the great state of Idaho, Gov Butch Otter </span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" lang="en-us"><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"> </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span>Hi, Bob Pearcy here from Nampa, <span><span style="color: #0000ff;"><span style="color: #000000;">Here is email from United States Justice Foundation</span>. </span></span></span><span>My question is - why have we asked for a constitutional convention and why under the present circumstances in WA are we not rescinding our vote for one?<span><span style="color: #0000ff;"> <span style="color: #000000;">Also I would like to know when did we ask for a con-con and for what reason?</span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span><span>Please pass this on to Gov. Otter and whomever else may give us some enlightenment on this. I will keep my readers updated on <a href="http://www.bobpearcy.com">www.bobpearcy.com.</a></span></span></span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span><span> </span></span></span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Thanks<span><span style="color: #0000ff;"> </span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span> </span></span></span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span>Bob Pearcy</span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span><strong>I am sending the following in it's entirety</strong></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span> </span></span></div>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">--- On <strong>Thu, 8/13/09, United States Justice Foundation <em>&lt;info@usjfalerts.net&gt;</em></strong> wrote:&nbsp;
<blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid #1010ff; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;">From: United States Justice Foundation &lt;info@usjfalerts.net&gt; Subject: Obama's Biggest Con ... A Constitutional Convention Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 6:13 PM</blockquote>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
&nbsp;

<span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: <em>HELP US <span style="text-decoration: underline;">STOP</span> A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!</em> </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">Dear Friend, <strong>BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION <span style="text-decoration: underline;">WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE</span> AMENDMENT PROCESS -- IN FACT, THEY'RE TRYING TO REWRITE THE <span style="text-decoration: underline;">ENTIRE CONSTITUTION</span> -- AND THEY'RE CLOSE TO SUCCEEDING!</strong> What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, which <span style="text-decoration: underline;">repealed the First Amendment</span> in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Free Speech</span></strong>? What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which <span style="text-decoration: underline;">repealed the Second Amendment</span> in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Keep and Bear Arms</span></strong>? (A right that the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld!) "That could never happen," you say. "No one would allow it!" Right? Well... Did you know that there are <strong>TWO ways</strong> that our Constitution can be changed? And did you know that Pelosi, Reid and Barack Obama are using the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">less</span> well-known way, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">without</span> having to actually introduce amendments? <strong>IT'S TRUE -- and WE have to stop it NOW!</strong> One way to change the Constitution is to go through the amendment process -- a long and tedious process requiring two-thirds of both houses of Congress to pass an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states to ratify it. That means a "super-majority" of our representatives at the National and State levels would have to be in favor of the amendment -- which safeguards us from the possibility of really "bad" amendments. BUT... there is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">one other way</span> that our Constitution can be changed... and it DOES <span style="text-decoration: underline;">NOT</span> require all of those elected representatives to be in favor of it. It's called a <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Constitutional Convention</span></strong>, and all that it requires is 34 states to ask Congress to call one. In fact, right now, all that is needed is for <span style="text-decoration: underline;">two more states</span> to ask for a Constitutional Convention... and the basic law of the land could be <span style="text-decoration: underline;">changed forever</span> by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid! </span>

<span style="font-family: arial;"><strong>WE NEED <span style="text-decoration: underline;">YOUR</span> HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: </strong></span><span style="font-family: arial;">Most people don't realize that Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention (a "Con Con") if two-thirds (or 34) of the states request it. We've only had one other "Con Con" in our history: the one where the original Constitution was written in 1787! The language of Article V is mandatory: it says that Congress "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" whenever requests are received from two-thirds of the states. Note that the word "amendments" is used in the plural. These are the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">only instructions</span> we have about a Constitutional Convention. There are no other rules or guidelines. We don't know how a Constitutional Convention would be apportioned, or how the delegates would be elected. We don't know what rules the Convention would operate under. We don't know whether changes to the Constitution could be proposed by a simple majority, or would require a super majority, of those attending. We don't know if the agenda could be limited or would be wide open to any proposal. <strong>We don't know ANYTHING about how a Con Con would work</strong> -- which means that it will come down to Congress setting the rules! <strong>And Congress is controlled by the most radically liberal Democrats in American history!</strong> Is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">that</span> who we want to be in charge of a new Constitutional Convention? Do we want BARACK OBAMA, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">NANCY PELOSI</span>, and <span style="text-decoration: underline;">HARRY REID</span> to completely rewrite our most basic document of law? </span>

<span style="font-family: arial;"><strong>WE NEED <span style="text-decoration: underline;">YOUR</span> HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: </strong></span><span style="font-family: arial;">The fact is, under the vague language of Article V, a Constitutional Convention <span style="text-decoration: underline;">cannot</span> be limited. It would be <span style="text-decoration: underline;">wide open</span>, and able to consider <span style="text-decoration: underline;">ANY</span> change in the Constitution that was proposed! Former U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once said, "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." The Stanford Law School Professor whose case-book is used in the majority of U.S. law schools, Gerald Gunther, said that, even if Congress tried to limit the Convention to one subject, the delegates could decide for themselves that the Convention "is entitled to set its own agenda." This means that, even if supporters of a "Con Con" claim that the convention would only cover one issue -- whether it's a balanced budget amendment or removing the requirement that to be eligible to serve as President, one must be a "natural born citizen," or <span style="text-decoration: underline;">anything else</span> -- there is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">NO WAY</span> to stop the Convention from changing EVERYTHING that we hold dear in America! Barack Obama and his far-left supporters would be able to get THEIR people appointed as delegates to the Convention, so that THEIR agendas would be the Convention's agenda, and THEIR plans for socialism in America would come to pass. <strong>Say <span style="text-decoration: underline;">BYE-BYE</span> to the First Amendment's <span style="text-decoration: underline;">freedom of speech</span> -- Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity could be taken off the air. Say <span style="text-decoration: underline;">BYE-BYE</span> to the Second Amendment's <span style="text-decoration: underline;">right to bear arms</span> -- a total gun ban could be the law of the land! Say BYE-BYE to the Constitution's requirement that to serve as President a man or a woman must be a "natural born citizen"! </strong>You <span style="text-decoration: underline;">KNOW</span> that's what they'll do if given the chance -- and we're only <span style="text-decoration: underline;">TWO STATES AWAY</span> from seeing a Constitutional Convention convened! You see, Article V says that it takes a request from two-thirds of the states to force a "Con Con" -- but it <span style="text-decoration: underline;">doesn't</span> say there's any <span style="text-decoration: underline;">time limit</span> on getting to that total! <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Thirty-two states</span> have already issued a call for a "Con Con" over the last few <span style="text-decoration: underline;">decades</span>, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. <strong>It only takes <span style="text-decoration: underline;">34 states</span> to REQUIRE a Constitutional Convention be convened!</strong> Some states, like Georgia, Virginia, and others, have since voted to "rescind" their call for a "Con Con" -- BUT <span style="text-decoration: underline;">no one</span> is sure whether those "rescission" votes are actually Constitutional...so the danger is REAL! </span>

<span style="font-family: arial;"><strong>WE NEED <span style="text-decoration: underline;">YOUR</span> HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: </strong></span><span style="font-family: arial;">The United States Justice Foundation is launching a <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">major campaign</span></strong> to STOP a "Con Con" from taking place -- WE MUST CREATE a tremendous outpouring of publicity and public scrutiny to be given to this danger, so that Barack Obama and his radical liberal allies can't "sneak this past us" without anyone noticing, until it's too late. Right now, our staff is conducting legal and historical research, and preparing legal opinions, to submit to every state legislature, if necessary, and we'll be offering to represent any state, or state legislator, in fighting the Con-Con based on those documents. We're also going to be leading a grassroots effort to attack this issue at both the state and federal levels: At the state level, leading the charge in every state to either NOT VOTE for a "Con Con" (if they haven't voted yet) or to RESCIND their past vote in favor (if they have). And, at the federal level, we'll be mobilizing citizens across the country to contact their Representatives and Senators to DEMAND that they come out, NOW, and announce their support for a state's right to rescind, and that they won't support a call for a "Con-Con." In addition, we'll be calling on the Attorney General of the United States, and the Attorney General of each and every State that has passed a "Con-Con" resolution, to issue an official Opinion on the legality of rescission. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">THIS DANGER IS REAL</span>. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called for the exclusive purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Once the Founding Fathers assembled in Philadelphia, however, they threw out the Articles of Confederation and wrote an entirely new Constitution, and even changed the ratification procedure so they could get it adopted more easily. The 1787 Convention is the only precedent we have for a national Constitutional Convention. There's no guarantee that all of the changes to our Constitution passed at a Constitutional Convention would need to be ratified by 34 states this time -- if a "Con Con" can change our structure of government as defined in Articles I, II, and III, of the Constitution, then it can also change the Article V requirement that three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify any changes. The Convention of 1787 reduced the number of states required to ratify a change from 100% of the states to 75%, and a Convention today could "follow their example" and reduce it further, to 66%, or 60%, or even 51%! WE MUST NOT LET THIS HAPPEN! There's <span style="text-decoration: underline;">very little time</span> to ramp this project up to FULL SPEED -- we need to raise at least <strong>$100,000</strong> to prepare and distribute legal opinions, lobby state legislators and begin our grassroots activism campaign <span style="text-decoration: underline;">this coming month</span>. Please, let's STOP Obama, Pelosi and Reid from ripping our Constitution to shreds, and re-writing it to their own socialist goals! Sincerely, </span>

<span style="font-family: arial;">Gary Kreep, Executive Director United States Justice Foundation P.S. President Barack Obama has already expressed his belief that the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events. Can you <em>imagine</em> what he and his supporters would DO to that document if given the chance to <em>re-write it completely</em>? Our Bill of Rights could <em>disappear</em> overnight! In fact, all the way back in 2006, Obama already had his lawyers researching how someone could get around the eligibility requirements to serve as U.S. President -- these people simply don't CARE about whether we preserve the supreme law of the land! <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Remember</span> -- when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply <span style="text-decoration: underline;">threw them out</span> and wrote a whole <span style="text-decoration: underline;">new Constitution</span>. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">That's EXACTLY what Obama, Pelosi and Reid would do this time</span> -- but this time, the result would <span style="text-decoration: underline;">destroy</span> our freedoms. Please,  help us STOP them. Thank you! </span>

<span style="font-family: arial;"><strong>WE NEED TO STOP BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: </strong></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><em>To donate by check, make payable to: United States Justice Foundation 932 D Street Suite 1 Ramona, CA 92065 </em></span>

<span style="font-family: arial;"><strong>I have listed this post in every category since the subject can affect every aspect of our lives, BP</strong><em>
</em></span>
<table border="0" width="620" align="center">
<tbody></tbody>
</table><p><a class="a2a_dd a2a_target addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bobpearcy.com%2Fwe-dont-need-or-want-a-constitutional-convention%2F&amp;title=We%20Don%26%238217%3Bt%20Need%20or%20Want%20A%20Constitutional%20Convention" id="wpa2a_2"><img src="http://www.bobpearcy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="share save 171 16 We Dont Need or Want A Constitutional Convention"  title="We Dont Need or Want A Constitutional Convention" /></a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bobpearcy.com/we-dont-need-or-want-a-constitutional-convention/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

