Hillary Clinton aims at Convention of States Project — and misses

Hillary Clinton aims at Convention of States Project — and misses
© Getty

While promoting her new book, “What Happened,” on a podcast, Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonGOP rushes to cut ties to Moore Papadopoulos was in regular contact with Stephen Miller, helped edit Trump speech: report Bannon jokes Clinton got her ‘ass kicked’ in 2016 election MORE took aim at the efforts of the Convention of States Project.

During the interview, Clinton alleges that through gerrymandering, Republicans plan to elect Republican governors, and call a constitutional convention. Clinton suggests that supporters of the Convention of State Project advocates for limits on the First Amendment, no limits on the Second Amendment, as well as limits on criminal justice.

ADVERTISEMENT
Hillary Clinton’s criticism are misleading. Convention of States Project (COS Project) is not advocating for a  constitutional convention. The COS Project advocates for an amending Convention of States by invoking Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

A constitutional convention and a Convention of States are two different things. In a constitutional convention, the delegates would get out a blank sheet of paper and start all over. In America, we have a strong, robust Constitution that has served us well. The Founders realized that there may come a time when the Constitution may need to tweaked or amended. The Founders realized that there may come a time when Congress could become corrupt and unreliable and unable to make necessary changes.  So, they gave us another way of proposing amendments — one that does not require the permission of Congress or the president. Thus, two-thirds of the state legislatures can call a Convention of States to propose amendments to the Constitution.

Hillary Clinton knows this. She’s a lawyer.

Clinton likely also knows that a Convention of States only has the authority to propose amendments. It cannot change the American system of government. It cannot even change the Constitution without ratification by the states. Calling an Article V Convention of States a “constitutional convention” is, clearly, a very poor choice of words — the kind of words meant to incite fear in an attempt to rob citizens of their power.

Gerrymandering is not the reason state legislatures are becoming more Republican. Conservative victories are due to the ascendancy of conservative ideas like lower taxes, less government intrusion, and self-governance. Hillary may not realize it, due to the overwhelming amount of time spent in her liberal bubble, but conservative ideas are popular. Has she forgotten the 63 million "deplorables" who voted Republican in the last election?

I’m unaware of any Republican, or supporter of Convention of States advocating for limits on the First Amendment. Clinton, however, has advocated for such limits. In fact, after the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United, she vowed to limit free speech, even if it took a constitutional amendment to do so. A Convention of States would help prevent politicians like Hillary Clinton from limiting freedom of speech and freedom of religion, both concepts to which her track record shows she is hostile.

She feigns horror when claiming Republicans want to limit the First Amendment, then feigns horror again when claiming we don’t want to limit the Second Amendment.  Which is it, Hillary?  The Bill of Rights is the Bill of Rights. You don’t get to pick and choose which amendments should be limited based on what fits your political standards. Hillary Clinton has once again proved she will say and do anything so long as it suits the agenda of the New Democratic Party.

A resolution from the Convention of States Project calls for fiscal restraint, limiting the size and scope and jurisdiction of the federal government, as well as term limits on federal officials, such as judges.

Using Article V, the states would have the opportunity to convene and propose amendments that fall in line with the resolution scope, such as a balanced budget, term limits on the federal judiciary and Supreme court. While it takes only two-thirds, or 34 states to call the convention, ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. For those worried that a state may propose a rogue amendment, it takes just 13 states voting “no” to defeat any proposed amendment. The chances of 38 state legislatures passing any rogue amendment are effectively zero.

Hillary Clinton manages to say one thing with which I do agree. ‘“Hey guys, this is serious stuff,”’ she said. ‘“We have to pay attention to it.’” Those might be the only true words I’ve ever heard her utter.

Twelve states of the 34 needed have passed a Convention of States application so far and three additional states including Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania could potentially pass resolutions this legislative session. Next session, 2018, at least 25 states will be considering the resolution.  

We will reach our goal, whether failed career politicians like it or not.

If Clinton’s book is about losing an election, why is she taking shots at the Convention of States? After all, Trump has never endorsed it. I'll tell you why. She is still a big-government leftist. She, as well as many Democratic state officials, and many George Soros-funded left wing organizations, know that the Convention of States is the greatest threat to their statist agenda.

This is Clinton’s first shot in a new political war, another war she can't be allowed to win.

Mark Meckler is the president of Citizens for Self-Governance, founder of the Convention of States Project, and a leading constitutional grassroots activist.