Page Six C

Typical JBS/Eagle Forum pieces from 2009, 2010 and 2015 on an Article V Convention presenting "arguments" for not holding an Article V Convention are presented at left. Images may be clicked to read the article (linked to the JBS website). While various articles may discuss an "argument" in more detail the basic premise of the JBS/Eagle Forum campaign has never varied since 1983. The basis, and therefore the presumed facts on which the argument is based, remains unchanged and recalcitrant. There appears to be no effort by JBS/Eagle Forum to revise its arguments in light of any new developments or information since 1983.

FOAVC believes any prevention about a subject should show both sides in order to allow the reader the ability to judge for himself. FOAVC has no concerns about posting articles by JBS/Eagle Forum on its site in order to examine and discuss the arguments and tactics presented. FOAVC intended to post the full articles on this site but was denied permission by JBS who required links to its site instead. JBS/Eagle Forum do not believe in freedom of exchange of ideas as shown by it blocking of access to its pages for commenting purposes to members of FOAVC (Click image right to enlarge).

Notably JBS/Eagle Forum sell their information for a profit. Clicking on links in the stories either brings a link to buy a subscription or produces additional pages to the article for various campaign products. FOAVC does not "sell" public record for a profit. The issue being discussed by JBS/Eagle Forum is public record. This is why our record of state applications is open to all on our site and available for free download as is all material on the FOAVC website. FOAVC has already demonstrated JBS/Eagle Forum statements about the Federal Convention of 1787 is false. We do not believe any group should profit from false information about an important national issue.

In all its articles JBS/Eagle Forum repeatedly calls for the Constitution to be obeyed by the United States Government. The articles do not present evidence proving constitutional disobedience by the government. Instead JBS/Eagle Forum assumes whatever subject (such as Obamacare, 2009 article) they mention is disobedience to the Constitution. Rather than amend the document, which JBS/Eagle Forum maintains (without evidence) the government will not obey anyway, JBS/Eagle Forum say the solution is for the government to obey the Constitution as written and intended by the Founders.

It is a matter of public record the Founders put the convention clause in the Constitution. Therefore it is a reasonable conclusion the Founders "intended" the convention clause be obeyed. Indeed, as is discussed elsewhere on this site (See Hamilton's Federalist 85 comments (See: Page 11 B); Madison's Discussion in Congress May 5, 1789, (See: Page 11 C), the Founders were emphatic about the convention clause being obeyed.

JBS/Eagle Forum has never explained why, as the states have repeatedly satisfied the requirement of Article V mandating Congress call a convention as proven by public record, obeying this clause of the Constitution is any different from obeying the rest of the Constitution. They fail to explain how conservatives desiring the Constitution be obeyed in all aspects (including calling a convention) is somehow "misguided."

As the states have applied and obedience to the Constitution mandates a convention call which JBS/Eagle Forum oppose, the only conclusion possible, based on JBS/Eagle Forum's own statement, is that JBS/Eagle Forum is either "misguided," believe only certain parts of the Constitution should be obeyed or actually support the Government not adhering "to the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders." In any case, their argument obviously contradicts itself.

JBS/Eagle Forum opposes an Article V Convention whether politically supported by liberals or conservatives. One of the tactics used by JBS/Eagle Forum is to assert if a convention is held the other political side (usually liberals) will somehow obtain control of it and thus doom the nation. (See 2009 article). According to JBS/Eagle Forum a convention should not be held because either the other political side will seize control of it.

JBS/Eagle Forum have never provided any evidence the liberal community (for example) is even remotely interested in "controlling" an Article V Convention by publication or quotes from known liberal websites where control of a convention is routinely contemplated, let alone planned. A examination of political composition of this nation and the requirements of the Constitution prove this JBS/Eagle Forum assertion false.

As shown by the Gallup Poll above Americans identifying themselves as either Republicans or Democrats has steadily declined since 1988. Currently only 26 percent identify themselves as Republicans, 29 percent as Democrats. Only 38 percent identify themselves as "conservatives" and 24 percent as "liberals" thus closely approximating those who identify themselves as Republicans or Democrats. The vast majority of Americans now identify themselves as "Independent" that is affiliated with no political party or "Moderate."

As with Congress, an Article V Convention requires a two thirds vote by the state delegations to propose an amendment (See Page 18). Beyond this first constitutional barrier lies a second--a three fourths favorable vote either in the state legislatures or in state ratification conventions called to consider the ratification question. Figures do not lie. Even if every American identified as either "liberal" or "conservative" supported an amendment proposal, by themselves they cannot achieve proposal, let alone ratification of that proposal.

The Constitution requires broad political support to pass an amendment. No single political persuasion in this nation possesses sufficient numeric strength to overcome the super majority requirements of the Constitution. This fact explains why the Constitution has been ratified only 27 times in its history with eleven of those amendments proposed in the original Bill of Rights which most historians agree should be viewed as part of the original Constitution. Facts of political reality prove the JBS/Eagle Forum assertion of a single political faction of "liberals" or "conservations" seizing control of a convention and putting "their" agenda through without consent from the other side, false.

Another tactic of a JBS/Eagle Forum is assumption of fact without evidence or proof. For example on Page 1 of the 2009 article the writer states "...Congress shall call a convention for proposing Amendments (commonly referred to as a "constitutional convention" or "con-con")." The facts prove this statement of common reference incorrect. A Google search on November 22, 2016 of the term "constitutional convention" shows about 3,520,000 results nearly all of which refer to the Federal Convention of 1787.

On the other hand, according Google, the term "Article V Convention" shows about 19,600,000 results nearly all of which refer to the amendments process found in Article V of the Constitution. Therefore by a ratio of nearly 6 to 1 the most commonly used reference when referring to a "convention for proposing Amendments" is an "Article V Convention" and not a "constitutional convention."

This distinction has significance. An Article V Convention refers specifically to the convention referred to in Article V of the United States Constitution meaning a "convention for proposing Amendments...as part of this Constitution." [Emphasis added]. The JBS/Eagle Forum reference to "constitutional convention" or "con-con" by their own admission refers to the Federal Convention of 1787 as they interpret what occurred at the convention which, as already discussed, is false.

JBS/Eagle Forum, without proof then assumes an Article V Convention of today operating under a completely different form of government will become a "runaway" "constitutional convention" or "con-con" even though historic record irrefutably proves no such event ever occurred. There is no reference in the Constitution to a "constitutional convention" or "con-con." The Constitution clearly limits the Article V Convention both as to purpose and scope. Thus JBS/Eagle Forum, whenever using the term "constitutional convention" or "con-con," refers to something not in the Constitution and based on assumptions of history public record proves entirely false.

A famous slogan of JBS, based on its own inaccurate tabulation of applications, was that as of 1983 only "two more states" were required to cause a convention call on the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) (See page 1, 2009 Article). As JBS/Eagle Forum opposed a balanced budget amendment the implication was JBS/Eagle Forum supporters had to act now before two more states applied. As shown by public record, by 1979 the states had achieved the necessary two thirds requirement on that subject alone if this were the standard for a convention call. The states reached the actual numeric count standard set by the Constitution decades before 1979.

Indeed, as the political objective of JBS/Eagle Forum is preventing any amendment subject from reaching the two thirds standard thus preventing a convention call, their campaign has failed miserably. Besides a balanced budget amendment the record proves the states met the two thirds standard on three other subjects: Direct Election of Senators (1911); Apportionment (1978); Repeal of Federal Income Tax (1989). Based on the facts of public record the "two more states" statement by JBS/Eagle Forum is false.