Skip to content

The Con Con vs. The Burger Letter

January 23, 2009
Harold Poole

us-constitution-2There has been much hype recently regarding a proposed Constitutional Convention and it’s aftermath.

On one hand, you have Bill Walker (FOAVC) and Joel S. Hirschhorn who tout the necessity of a Con Con. Both of these individuals often comment on News with Attitude supporting the Con Con and belittling the articles I post here in opposition to a Con Con. Mr. Walker has even gone so far as to admonish and threaten Tom Deweese, President of the American Policy Center (APC), ostracize the John Birch Society, and attempt to discredit the Conservative movement in our Republic. That’s right, I said “Republic” because these individuals would like you to believe the United States is a “democracy” – not a “Republic”.

Here is a link to the letter from SCOTUS Chief Justice (Retired) Warren Burger written in response to questions raised by Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum. This is the letter which Mr. Walker would have you believe is a fake. At least that is the jist of his threats directed toward Mr. Deweese.

My position has always been one of, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”.

us-constitutionThere is absolutely nothing wrong with our current Constitution which would require a re-write. Sure, there are some amendments that have been added which attempt to negate the wishes of our founding fathers. But when digging deep enough, one discovers that there are irregularities and questions regarding their constitutionality. Several of the amendments in question have either been adopted illegally or have been bastardized by the judicial, executive and legislative processes.

Our Constitution is NOT a living document, but rather a set of laws. Although penned on parchment, this set of laws is considered by many to be etched in stone (similar to God’s Ten Commandments).

Bill Clinton had a problem with #6. So what did he do? He denied it ever happened (lied).

George Bush had problems with #6 and #8. What was his response? He delegated authority (shifted blame) to someone else.

As for our current dilemma with Barry Soetero, before even taking office, he has exhibited real problems with #1, #5, #9 and #10.

Of course, regarding Bill, George and Barry, I’m talking about the Ten Commandments. With respect to Mr. Walker and Mr. Hirschhorn? The Constitution of the United States of America!

My point? How about instead of writing a “new and improved” version, we first try enforcing those laws that currently exist?

WOW! What a novel idea!

Instead of changing our Constitution to eliminate or “water down” the 14th Amendment, we might try enforcing it as Congress enacted it. Quit trying to rationalize the thoughts of those before us, but instead enforce and uphold those laws for which many toiled and died in order to provide their posterity with the means necessary to vanquish its enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Instead of changing the 2nd Amendment to “protect us from criminals”, enforce the 2nd Amendment to allow “we the people” to protect ourselves from the REAL criminals — the federal government!

Instead of creating new legislation to further jumble our immigration system, why not enforce the laws currently on the books? Let me tell you why! Our current laws are deemed to be too oppressive to our “illegal alien” friends (?) who live “south of the border”. Not to mention the ill effects our current laws have on our “liberal” friends (?) who reside north of our southern border (predominately within the “beltway”)!

And while we’re at it, let’s eliminate those pesky executive orders which attempt to rewrite our Constitution and subvert the rule of law!


So remember –

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

Enforce it!

4 Comments leave one →
  1. Harold permalink*
    January 24, 2009 2:33 pm

    My concerns regarding a Constitutional Convention are as follows:

    1. Who will be the delegates and how will they be chosen?
    2. How will the vote be administered?
    3. Will the convention AND vote be completely transparent to the public, aka “We the people”?
    4. If grievances occur during the Convention and voting process (as they most assuredly will), WHO will decide WHAT is heard and WHEN?

    EVERY step of the process is open to intense speculation and possible corruption. We as an American people will be expected to abide by the outcome of this Convention and ultimately — the final vote! The EXACT SAME voting process that has landed us in this quagmire in the first place. Until the voting process can be legitimized (ie. hand counting of paper ballots), the ENTIRE Conventional process will be subject to the SAME corruption currently present in our government. If you REALLY want to end the corruption, you don’t promote the status quo or allow the corrupt establishment to change the laws (Constitution), you get a NEW and HONEST sheriff!!

    As for our nation being both a Republic AND Democracy — WHAT drugs are you on? The last time I checked the United States of America was established as a Republic with a democratic voting process. Lincoln and FDR notwithstanding, Americans (except those brainwashed by the state’s public education system) know the differences between the two AND know the blurring of the differences between them.

  2. January 24, 2009 9:55 am

    Intelligent people should recognize that the USA is BOTH a republic and a democracy. And it surely is delusional to reject the notion that the Founders and Framers believed that the Constitution was regid and fixed. To the contrary, they wisely provided the mechanisms for amending it, knowing that any set of laws must be open to improvement, correction and change. To see otherwise indicates a lack of critical thinking. As to what amendments would make our nation work better, that is a topic that deserves serious national debate, which would occur if Congress obeyed the Constitution (and why would you not want Congress to obey the Constitution?) and give us what we have a constitutional right to have: an Article V convention. Friends of the Article V Convention at does not advocate for any specific amendments, but we recognize the potential for some to correct and improve our supposed rule of law. To keep betting everything on elections and the two-party plutocracy that really controls who gets elected indicates a serious lack of intellect and wisdom. People who oppose using Article V to get a convention are nothing more than advocates of the status quo political system, and that is shameful.

  3. January 24, 2009 12:38 am

    how about we add a 28th amendment to secure the voting process from private interests?

    will congress propose such? no. would a convention of state delegates? perhaps.

    stop looking at the Article V Convention as re-writing the out high law, and start looking at it as the building of consensus between 38 states.

    fyi, to convoke a convention is to obey the law we have.

  4. January 23, 2009 2:12 pm

    Let’s get a couple things correct for the public record.

    1. Mr. Poole says in bold letters, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! Enforce it!” News flash Mr. Poole. Article V is part of the Constitution. A convention call is contained in Article V. That means what you are saying is “enforce Article V” meaning you support the calling of Article V. Yet you urge the Constitution not be obeyed, meaning you don’t support “enforcing” the Constitution. Obvious hypocrisy.

    2. Article V clearly states that a convention, just like Congress is limited to proposing amendments which become “part of this Constitution.” That means no one can,or for that matter, is proposing the writing of new Constitution. I challenge anyone to find even one amendment proposal, and there are over 650 of them from all 50 states the texts of which are published on our website at, which shows any state has ever requested removing a single right from any American. Indeed the records shows the states want to increase the rights of Americans. (Witness the example of the 1910 application by Wisconsin for a federal initiative, referendum, recall amendment). By the way, under the terms of Article V Mr. Poole that 650/50 figure means Congress has to call so when you say “enforce it” you mean there must be a convention call.

    3. Any question regarding the so-called Burger letter came about because opponents to a convention (that’s your side Mr. Poole, not ours) stated repeatedly in print the letter was written in 1983. This was done since 1996 and most recently was done by Tom Deweese himself. I tried to tell Mr. Deweese privately in an email about this problem but he choose, not me, to make it public. If you look at our video on You tube at you’ll see we clearly show Mr. Deweese’s (and others) statements the letter was written in 1983.

    4. Mr. Poole then begins to complain about how amendments were “adopted illegally” or have been “bastardized” by the government. Of course he fails to mention that if this is true, the Constitution, as demonstrated by 21st Amendment, can be undone. Hence, if he has an issue with a specific amendment, he can move for its repeal. Does he call for this? No instead he implores us to simply “obey the Constitution” meaning he asks those who he himself admits have not and will not obey the Constitution (the government) to obey it.

    And if they don’t Mr. Poole then what? Do we continue to remain impotent and beg? If Mr. Poole wants that I suggest he urge in his column we all go back to living under the King or Queen of England because that was what caused us to revolt in the first place and Mr. Poole seems to want us to return to that form of government by his position.

    Mr. Poole states correctly the Constitution is a set of laws–laws he says are not being obeyed. His answer is to expect those who break the laws to enforce them. I wonder what his reaction would be if someone broke into his house to rob him. Would he cry out for the criminal to obey the law and continue crying out as the criminal went about his business robbing him or would he call the police, have the guy arrested and thrown in jail?

    That’s what Mr. Poole wants. For us to continue crying and do nothing. Article V is designed to allow us to change the rules and address actions of the government it refuses to address itself. Mr. Poole would have us be robbed and do nothing but protest. I say it’s time to call in the cops and have the bums arrested by proposing amendments which fix the very issues Mr. Poole himself acknowledge exist. The only to do that is amend the Constitution to give the people the power with a new set of constitutional tools which in turn allow them to address issues such as Mr. Poole raises.

    Not by simply whimpering in the corner. That is not the American way to solve a problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: