Could Obama close Congress and convene a Constitutional
Convention in which a new constitution is formulated, but also a new Congress
with new (unelected) representatives and a new more powerful executive?
Far out?
It already happened in Venezuela and Ecuador.
It seems to be the modus operandi for the Marxist takeover
of Latin America and Africa as one nation after another follows this same
pattern.
And here is how it works:
A new leftist leader takes power (like Obama).
A ‘referendum’ is held to have ‘the people’ decide for the
need of a new Constitutional Convention in order to modify the existing
constitution.
The referendum is approved by ‘popular’ vote.
The Constitutional Convention happens.
Instead of the local constitution being simply modified…a
totally new constitution is created and approved.
The Constitutional Convention then instead of disbanding,
turns around and declares the seated Congressmen as null and void under the new
Constitution and seat new representatives in their place.
The capital police is then called to encircle the
congressional building and keep the legitimate congressmen out in the street as
the new ‘congressmen’ seat themselves.
New ‘elections’ are rapidly held to seat the new Congress
under the new Constitution.
These ‘elections’ are crooked and illegitimate and
facilitated by electronic voting and tallying machines.
The new Congress then opens its doors the following day
beaming at the newly empowered President and giving him full support.
The whole operation is nothing but a glorified coup enforced
by the capital police and tolerated by a military that is either bought out,
infiltrated or clueless.
It’s also an act that could easily result in civil war –
local authorities and armed forces might not see the new government as
illegitimate.
So far no civil war has erupted in countries where it has
taken place.
But think about it.
Could it happen here?
Talk is already in the air about OUR Constitution being
obsolete - about America needing a new Constitution for modern times.
Bush called the Constitution ‘a piece of paper.’
Obama seems to have no regard for it.
The American People have no idea what’s in it.
The states regularly toss their 9th and 10th
Amendment rights at the feet of the federal government.
We already have a Marxist President - just like Ecuador and
Venezuela do.
So why not?
The key event here is ‘constitutional convention.’
And the truth is the workings of an upcoming Constitutional
Convention are well underway…
…by the treacherous states themselves.
Did you know that 32 of the 34 states required to launch a
constitutional convention have already signed up to request one?
This has been happening in a very low key fashion between
the 1975 and 1982.
Did you know all those ‘requests’ have no expiration date,
but are cumulative until the ¾ majority is reached?
Did you know that only New York and California’s refusal to
apply is keeping the ‘convention’ from happening?
Well now you know.
I always considered a new Constitutional Convention in this
country a joke until I started noticing Marxist governments using the method
time after time to gain absolute power in countries within Africa and Latin
America.
All without much fanfare from the American or European
media.
Good examples of the method are illustrated by the fall of Ecuadorian and
Venezuelan democracies to Marxist dictatorship via what they called
“constitutional assemblies” – their word for a constitutional convention.
Let’s look at the standard methodology of swiping away representative
government.
We really must look closely at the examples of Venezuela and Ecuador BECAUSE THE EXACT SAME THING COULD HAPPEN HERE.
The people running the show here now are the same people running the show in those two defunct democracies (closet Marxists).
President Chavez coups the Venezuelan Government and
Constitution in 1999:
During the referendum an amazing 90% of participating
voters approved the need for a constitutional convention [results were supplied
by crooked Diebold electronic voting machines owned by Chavista allies].
Following this approval, a special election was held
in which the members of the constitutional convention were elected.
Of the candidates standing for election to the
constitutional convention, half were opponents of Chávez. In spite of this,
Chavez supporters got 95% of the seats to the convention [through the use of
Diebold electronic voting machines owned by Chavez cronies].
With this crookedly elected majority of ‘Chavistas’
making up the constitutional convention, the convention voted to give
themselves the power to abolish government institutions (because a new
constitution might require this) and dismiss government officials (which
inhabited said abolished government institutions).
So basically what you had was a convention filled
with closet Marxists with the power to abolish the Venezuelan Government.
The constitutional convention put together a new
constitution which concentrated government in and gave unprecedented
powers to the president.
A second referendum was then held on whether to adopt the
new constitution or not.
Disillusioned with the canned voting results, half of the
voting population did not even bother to vote in this second referendum.
Of those voting, 72% approved the new constitution [again
through the use of fraudulent Diebold electronic voting machines].
The new constitution increased the presidential term to six
years and converted the bicameral
legislature into a communistic unicameral ‘National
Assembly’ – and eliminating all competing ‘branches of government.’
The new constitution increased the powers of the presidency
by extending its term and empowering the president with the power of issuing
executive orders on civil rights, economic affairs and financial matters – in effect it empowered a government
based on executive mandate.
It also charged the Army with maintaining public order as a
tool of the president.
The new constitution basically transformed Venezuela into a
military dictatorship under Chavez.
[paragraph transcribed from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez]
The country of Ecuador suffered its own constitutional
crisis and resolution in 2007 which seemed to have been drawn from the same
game plan as Venezuela.
President Correa Abolishes the Constitution and Closes
Congress in 2007:
Following several criticisms of Ecuador’s Constitution,
President Correa proposed a referendum on whether to hold a constitutional
convention in order to effect changes.
Congress approved the idea for a referendum.
As the referendum was taking place, President Correa
modified the "statutes" of the referendum (illegally) to giving much
more power to the constitutional convention than originally stated.
One of these powers was the ability to dismiss
Congress.
The referendum passed (once more through the use of
Diebold electronic voting machines).
The newer version of the referendum’s only call to
legitimacy was its approval by the newly appointed seven-seat Electoral
Tribunal which was to rule on all matters related to the referendum
and convention.
Congress reacted by trying to impeach the President of
the Electoral Tribunal.
The electoral tribunal then removed the 57 members of
Congress responsible for the attempted impeachment.
The situation escalated to a feud between the
opposition in Congress and the President and his supporting Electoral Tribunal,
ending with police intervention to prevent the Congressmen from entering the
legislative building.
Congressmen and women trying to reenter the Congress
were literally beat into the ground by capital police.
Alternate deputies were sworn in to replace the
expelled congressmen.
The new majority pledged to support the referendum on
the Constitutional Assembly.
Ecuador’s Supreme Court made a move to reinstate 51
of the 57 Congressmen who had been removed by the Electoral Tribunal’s mandate,
but before the congressmen had the chance to reenter the legislature, the new
Congress removed all nine judges of the Supreme Court.
Correas ascendancy to power had been dominated by
masses of ‘demonstrators’ who surrounded, threatened and even beat up judges,
congressmen and bureaucrats without any police interference.
Please note how in all the above cases it is the
newly created ‘assemblies,’ ‘tribunals’ and and ‘conventions’ which usurp the
power of the duly constituted congress.
It is the newly appointed or elected institutions
designed to carry out and uphold
the convention that end up getting rid of the government.
A Constitutional Convention is an institution that is
a lot more powerful than the name originally suggests.
It HAS to be powerful because it is charged with two
duties:
1) write
a new constitution
2) enforce
the adoption of the new constitution by carrying out the necessary changes in
the structure of government.
Without the second power, a Constitutional Convention
is basically just a think tank.
You can bet that when the new Constitution was
ratified in 1789, the existing unicameral 13 member National Congress that
existed under the Articles of Confederation was shut down – probably by a
polite ARMED guard.
It is this POWER of the Constitutional Convention
that is never taken into serious consideration.
A Constitutional Convention is given the power not only
to write a new constitution, but to enforce its adoption.
Frequently this means an abolition of existing
government institutions.
This is a necessary part of the convention process.
Let me put it another way.
What would happen if a constitutional convention
creates a new constitution which does not include a supreme court…and the
supreme court refuses to step down.
What happens now? Nothing? Does a stand off develop?
No.
Under these circumstances, the supreme court is
vacated by FORCE under the order of the Convention.
Now let me refer you to another very erudite
gentlemen.
Vincent Gioia is an astute and informed observer of
the Constitutional scene.
Below is an edited version of what he has written in
his blog at
http://vincentgioiasblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/constitutional-convention-there-are-no.html
I highly recommend you visit
this site and see what this author has to say about an upcoming Constitutional
Crisis.
For now here is an edited
version of what he talks about in his website:
Vincent
Gioia writes on the dangers of a Constitutional Convention:
The point is that at a
Constitutional Convention anything can happen and any prior agreements agreed
upon by states or limitations imposed by states as a condition for approval
have no meaning.
In other words, if there is a
Constitutional Convention the one we have lived with for over two hundred years
and which guarantees our individual rights can be scrapped and replaced by the
people gathered at the convention with no recourse by the states or the people.
Article V of the Constitution
is the basis for a Constitutional Convention:
“The Congress, whenever two
thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this
Constitution
or
on the Application of the
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for
proposing Amendments…
…which, in either Case, shall be
valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified
by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions
in three fourths thereof…as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be
proposed by the Congress…provided that no State, without its Consent, shall be
deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Pay special attention to the
second method of ratification: "by Conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the
Congress."
This seems to allow the
congress by a simple majority vote to propose either form of ratification:
either by 3/4 of the state legislatures, or 3/4 of "conventions" in
the states.
Although Amendments to the
Constitution until now originated in Congress and were circulated to the states
for ratification…
…Article V says that an
alternative to this procedure is for two thirds of the states to call for a
Constitutional Convention at which the constitution may be amended or
rewritten.
A call for a Constitutional
Convention requires only 34 states.
At present 32 states have
issued a call by their legislators.
So if two more states
approve, our individual rights and
freedom from government control of our lives could be ended.
A careful reading of Article V
shows there is no provision for selecting attendees to the Convention.
Do the states choose who will
represent them, or does congress?
Who picks the members of the
"state conventions?"
How are delegates selected?
How are the rules governing these state conventions determined?
Are the "state
conventions" held in the individual states, or by delegates sent to the
Constitutional Convention?
Will the U.S. Supreme Court be
the final arbiter of these questions?
Although Alabama, Florida, and
Louisiana, have rescinded their applications, under Article V of the
Constitution, Congress must still call a Constitutional Convention whenever 2/3
(or 34) of the states apply.
The Constitution makes no
provision for rescission.
Furthermore, with the
precedents of disallowing of the rescinding of votes for ratification, and the
extending of deadlines, it seems like almost any outcome could be attained,
including an entirely new Constitution.
Some are of the belief that
advocates of the convention are waiting to capture just two more states.
They can challenge the other
states’ rescissions in the courts while going ahead with the Convention.
Congress alone then decides
whether state legislatures or state conventions ratify proposed amendments (see
Article V above).
If there is no expiration
date, all of the calls for a Constitutional Convention regarding a Balanced Budget
that were initiated in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s are still valid.
There is legal precedent for
this.
For example, the
Twenty-seventh Amendment was proposed in 1789 and ratified more than 200 years
later in 1992.
On May 20, 1992, both houses
of Congress adopted concurrent resolutions accepting the 27th Amendment’s
unorthodox ratification process as having been successful and valid.
Certainly many of us want
government constrained by a balanced budget. But attempting to accomplish this
by means of a Constitutional Convention risks a revolutionary change in our
form of government.
Despite the fact that these
states premised their call for a Constitutional Convention on the desire to
have an Amendment requiring a balanced budget, it should be clear by now that
once a Constitutional Convention is in session any and all changes to the
Constitution may be proposed an offered for passage, thereby revising the
constitution in ways not anticipated by states calling for a convention.
What may be at risk if
socialists and liberals dominate the Convention; very likely the Second
Amendment, revision of the First Amendment; and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th
Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Tom DeWeese, who runs the
center and its education and grassroots work, told WorldNet Daily the
possibilities [of a Constitutional Convention] stunned him. "In truth no
restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a
Convention!
Once a Convention is called,
Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen.
Once chosen, those Convention
delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself."
Remember too that Barack Obama
believes the Constitution is flawed and says the Supreme Court should have intervened
years ago.
It must be kept in mind that the best way to shut down
Congress and keep it closed is through a Constitutional Convention.
Many justifications are being put forth in Washington’s
inner circles about the need for a new or modified Constitution.
Many Congressmen like Arizona “Republican” “Conservative”
Paul Gosar have already given up on the Constitution (see video below).
A new Constitution is needed to address important issues
like….
…a constitutionally mandated balanced budget
…more equitable wealth redistribution
…a guaranteed minimum standard of living
…minority rights
…elimination of the 15th Amendment (which
provides citizenship to anyone born here)
…direct election of the presidency (versus the present
electoral college system)
The thing about a new Constitutional Convention is that it
is a ‘insider’ topic – there is a lot of talk about it in Washington…but hardly
any of it reaches the American public…which is kept in the dark by the
Illuminati media.
All in all, talk of a Constitutional Convention is taboo –
most everybody is clueless when it comes to this topic…including most supposed
conspiracy pundits.
So will Obama close Congress?
If he is a Marxist agent, just like President Hugo Chavez of
Venezuela and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, why shouldn’t he?
If there is one thing that distinguishes the Illuminati it
is a robotic march with tradition.
Basically the same ideology and methodology born in the
French Revolution, carried through the Russian Revolution and reaching the
Venezuelan and Ecuadorian ‘revolutions’ is probably the same modus operandi
planned for us.
Please note that the French and Russian Revolutions both
grew out of a ‘constitutional’ change within their respective governments – new
governments that basically turned over those countries to the Illuminati.
Again, the modus operandi has not changed.
When you seek what to expect of the Illuminati, the answer
in many cases seems to be more of the same.
Expect Obama’s second term to be one of attempted
Constitutional change and the abolishment of Congress as we know it.
