Seth Grossman on why the “Convention of the States” should concern us.

Our U.S. Constitution provides two methods to amend or change it. They are both found in Article V.   One is for 2/3 of both houses of Congress to propose amendments.   The other is for 2/3 of the State Legislatures to "call a Convention for proposing Amendments".  Amendments proposed by either method become effective "when ratified by the Legislatures of 3/4 of the states by Conventions in 3/4 thereof".

Our Constitution was amended 18 times since it was first adopted in 1787.   The first ten amendments were adopted together as our "Bill of Rights" in 1791.   It was then amended 17 times during the next 227 years.  Each of those 27 amendments was proposed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress.  So far, the states never called a "Convention of States" or "Constitutional Convention" to amend our Constitution.

During the past few years, several well known conservatives proposed a "Convention of States" (Constitutional Convention) to amend or change our Constitution.  They claim that such a convention can propose amendments with good ideas like term limits and limits on borrowing and spending. 

However,  Communists, socialists, and "progressive" Democrats also want to change our Constitution.   They are proposing many bad ideas.  They want to get rid of the First Amendment so that "hate speech" (speech by anyone who disagrees with them) can be punished like it is in Europe, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.  They want to get rid of the 2d Amendment and outlaw all private gun ownership.    They want to get rid of the 10th Amendment that limits the power of the federal government.  They want to get rid of the Electoral College so a handful of big, socialist "sanctuary states" like California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey can pick all future Presidents.

If we have a "Convention of States" to propose changes to our Constitution, who would control it?  Whose proposed amendments would come out of it?   Even if 3/4 of all states fail to ratify bad amendments, there will be enormous pressure to change the ratification process if the big socialist states with a majority of the population support them.    Look at how they are already undermining  the  Electoral College!

Since 2014, Legislatures in 29 states adopted resolutions calling for a "Convention of States" to change our Constitution. There will be a Constitutional Convention if 2/3 (34) or just 5 more states adopt the resolution.

Most conservatives agree that America was great when our Constitution was understood, respected, and enforced as written.   We also agree that most Senators, Members of Congress, Judges, and State and Local Officials today routinely ignore and violate our Constitution.   Why not work to elect officials who will  "preserve, protect, and defend" our Constitution?   If those officials ignore the clear written language of the Constitution we have now, why would they respect and comply with a different Constitution?

Last year, our organization LibertyAndProsperity.com voted overwhelmingly to oppose any "Convention of States".  However, during the past few breakfasts, several guests and members asked us to talk about this issue again.

For that reason, we are having a special two hour breakfast program on the Convention of States Issue this Saturday, March 23.  We will begin at our regular 9:30AM time.   There will be special video presentations and speakers during the first hour moderated by Steve Jones.     There will be an optional Question and Answer session and discussion for those who wish to stay during the next hour. from 10:30AM to 11:30AM.

If you like our work, please support us with a tax deductible donation or be a $30 per year supporting member.   Pay online at LibertyAndProsperity.com, or at any Saturday Breakfast Discussion.   Or mail or drop off your check at our Somers Point office.   Thanks!


For More Information contact:

Seth Grossman, Executive Director
LibertyAndProsperity.com
Email:Info@libertyandprosperity.com

Cesaro (after 7 mos. ineligible): Glad somebody caught it?

Are you kidding us?

The people who run a whole bunch of towns hire an attorney who is on the ineligible list, that attorney handles a bunch of cases while officially "ineligible," and the best that attorney can come up with is a variation of that classic Bill Clinton line:  "Mistakes were made."

Wikipedia has a whole entry on this example of political doubletalk:

"Mistakes were made" is an expression that is commonly used as a rhetorical device, whereby a speaker acknowledges that a situation was handled poorly or inappropriately but seeks to evade any direct admission or accusation of responsibility by not specifying the person who made the mistakes. The acknowledgement of "mistakes" is framed in an abstract sense, with no direct reference to who made the mistakes. A less evasive construction might be along the lines of "I made mistakes" or "John Doe made mistakes." The speaker neither accepts personal responsibility nor accuses anyone else. The word "mistakes" also does not imply intent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made

Kudos to old "Maxie" Max Pizarro over at InsiderNJ who got Assembly candidate and Morris County Freeholder John Cesaro to speak on the record:

“It was a clerical error and it was 100% fixed,” Cesaro told InsiderNJ. “I spoke to the people down at the organization as soon as I found out about this, and as of this afternoon, the problem was resolved. I want to thank my opponent for bringing it to my attention.”

Somebody has some big balls!

The problems are just beginning.  The failure by those local governments to ensure that John Cesaro was eligible to practice law could pose serious problems for those towns.  The outcome of any case in which Cesaro served as a prosecutor or public defender could now be called into question by those involved.  They could all be subject to motions to vacate, or requests for a new trial.  Any party dissatisfied with an outcome could bring such a motion.  This could end up costing these towns big -- and leave property taxpayers with a enormous bill.

In case, you missed what this is about, here's the skinny:  An October 19, 2016 order by the New Jersey State Supreme Court, reflected in a search of the New Jersey Attorney Index, notes that attorney John Cesaro has been administratively ineligible to practice law in New Jersey since October 21, 2016 for failure to maintain compliance with the requirements of Rule 1:28A-2(d). 

Cesaro-courts.jpg

Who ever knew that John Cesaro was such a wild man?  And Cesaro certainly works for a lot of municipalities:

Cesaro-ethics.jpg

The local property taxpayers of these towns should invest in some soothing ointment.  By the time this is all over, they are going to need it.

Stay tuned...

John Cesaro is politically correct but legally "ineligible"

If you want to know what is wrong with New Jersey, just wrap your mind around this:  Municipalities will jump through hoops to make sure that the attorneys they hire are compliant with politically correct affirmative action mandates, but they will not make sure that the attorneys they hire are eligible to practice law in New Jersey.  No kidding.

Take the case of John Cesaro, a Freeholder in Morris County and candidate for the State Legislature.  Cesaro holds a whole lot of jobs that require an active law license, as his personal financial disclosure statements make clear:

The municipalities that hire Freeholder Cesaro make him sign disclosures that bind him to upholding... "county employment goals determined by the Affirmative Action office..." and to give written notice of this to "employment agencies, placement bureaus, colleges, universities, labor unions..."

A great many paragraphs are devoted to these concerns:

But apparently, maintaining an up-to-date license to practice law is not a concern in New Jersey, because nobody seems to make you sign a disclosure about that.

http://www.njcourts.gov/notices/2016/n161021a.pdf

https://portal.njcourts.gov/webe5/AttyPAWeb/pages/AttorneyStatusDefinitions.pdf

An October 19, 2016 order by the New Jersey State Supreme Court, reflected in a search of the New Jersey Attorney Index, notes that attorney John Cesaro has been administratively ineligible to practice law in New Jersey since October 21, 2016 for failure to maintain compliance with the requirements of Rule 1:28A-2(d).  The failure by these local governments to ensure that Cesaro was eligible to practice law could pose serious problems for those towns.

The outcome of any case in which Cesaro served as a prosecutor or public defender could now be called into question by those involved.  They could all be subject to motions to vacate, or requests for a new trial.  Any party dissatisfied with an outcome could bring such a motion.  This could end up costing these towns big -- and leave property taxpayers with a enormous bill.

Stay tuned...