Beware Article V part 2 of 4 An FOAVC Rebuttal Part 2 The Phony Burger Letter

[Foavccoordinator]

So now the great Mark Affleck well known constitutional scholar who tells us about the founders and what kind of republic they created, when confronted by one of them in a quote which refutes him, without any proof or referenced by the great Mark Affleck says that founder is balderdash. He ignores the fact Sherman does not say one of two methods but refers to Article 5 as a whole meaning both methods are so limited and tells us, again without reference, he knows better than a man who wrote it.

[fleck140]

Call me a cynic, but I do not believe you, your group, or any of the idiots in power today posess the necessary understanding, moral character, proper motive, or proper disposition to improve upon the document as it is written, nor do I believe a real need has yet arisen.

[Foavccoordinator]

Cynic? No. So let's see. The government has now acquired the power to veto the Constitution. The government is in complete runaway mode. Everyone says its being violated. States are discussing nullification laws, one state possible session from the union, we're going trillions in debt, and you say you see no need for change because no real need has yet arisen. Cynic? No. The image of a large bird with its head in the sand comes to mind actually.

[fleck140]

That's balderdash. If you ammend any statement with the word "not" you negate it. What constitutes amend and what constitues replace? I contend you can amend the constitution to such a degree that you render it totally incapable of providing for the comon good. The common method of amendment is very difficult ans should be. The convention route makes it a whole lot easier to establish a whole host of changes. See next reply.

[fleck140]

Do you even understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? The founders did. They rejected the notion of Democracy and created a Republic. They chose the Roman model over the Greek model. This is precisely why a Convention is a bad idea. Want a budget vote? Convince congress to adopt an Amendment. They love to pass off their responsibilities to others.

[Foavccoordinator]

And as part of that republic they created two methods of amendment proposal. A convention is not an "idea". It is part of the Constitution. You demonstrate why the founders put it there in your own statement of "convince" Congress. If Congress doesn't want to propose amendment we still can propose an amendment. You cling to something you can not prove with documentation or even logic: that all of the Constitution should be obeyed, except the part you disagree with. See second reply please.

[Foavccoordinator]

"By the present Constitution, we, nor all the Legislatures in the Union together, do not possess the power of repealing it. All that is granted us by the 5th Article is, that whenever we shall think it necessary, we may propose amendments to the constitution; not that we may propose to repeal the old, and substitute a new one." Roger Sherman, 1787 Constitutional Convention delegate.

I assume Mark that as a convention delegate from 1787 has directly answered your concerns this puts it to rest.

[fleck140]

Well, if the Supreme Court agrees with your position, why hasn't a convetion been called? And How is changing the constitution supposed to make congress obey it? I am obviously wasting my time with you. We disagree. You're never gonna see it my way, and I am never gonna see it your way.

[Foavccoordinator]

Because in 2006 the court ruled under the political question doctrine Congress may refuse or veto the Constitution and not call a convention. That was based on an earlier 2000 decision. Where do you think all this about the gov't vetoing the Constitution got started? As to making them obey it, you take away their choice to do so by putting amendments where the people make the choice rather than Congress. Example: a vote on the budget, done by the people, not Congress. It can be done.

[fleck140]

I fail to see how 32 calls for a balanced budget spanning the years 1961 thru 2000 constitutes a consensus. You guys are playing games and twisting everything to your advantage. There are also rescinded applications which have not even been included.

[Foavccoordinator]

You try the old "same subject" argument. The Constitution requires a simple numeric count of applying states regardless of any amendment issue or issues the application contains. The purpose of the application is to cause Congress to call a convention, not to gain a "consensus" as to any amendment proposal. We don't twist. We quote the Supreme Court. Take it up with them and their four decisions to the effect I've stated if you have a problem with this point.

[fleck140]

So you are admitting that a convention cannot be constrained to a single issue and you want to call every application over a 230 year period as a consensus of the states. Apparantely your definition of what constitutes a consensus and that of Congress is at odds. So I suppose that is what the various lawsuits are all about.

[Foavccoordinator]

Neither can Congress be constrained. You're trying to scare people with their own Constitution. And it is not my opinion as to count. The federal government has also admitted for the public record it is a numeric count of states with no terms or conditions. And, as the public record shows, except for a handful of applications, nearly all the 700 applications were made within the last century, a majority of these in the last 30-50 years.

[fleck140]

On your website #641 CR 127 Pg 21538 Yr 1981-Summary of Applications (34 Balanced Budget Amendments between 1975 and 1980) Is very misleading. It does a silmple line count but a closer examination shows that two of those line show dates only, no state is recorded. I wonder if that indicates multiple calls by the same state. The count should read 32 states. Shame on you.

[Foavccoordinator]

Mark, you forgot to add in the general applications from the states that so applied but did not apply for a balanced budget amendment. The actual total number of applications for this specific issue is 36. Shame on you for not pointing this fact out. We do on our site. Of course, the gov't admitted at SCOTUS it is simple numeric count of applying states with no other terms or conditions and all 50 have applied over 700 times, well in excess of the number required by the Constitution.

[fleck140]

Yeah Term Limits is a really great idea!!!

Let's take more power from the people and dictate who they can elect and for how long. That's a real problem solver. And while we are at it.... We can ensure that a large percentage of our legislature is in lame-duck status all the time. What a recipe for representative government.

[Foavccoordinator]

Ah, now we know. You're against a specific amendment proposal and this is the real reason you oppose a convention. Not because you fear a convention might runaway but because it might propose a term limit amendment. That leaves 19 other issues you obviously support. Remember FOAVC is non-partisan. We support no particular amendment proposal. Still waiting for you to describe amendments "I" have proposed.

[fleck140]

FACTS:

1. FOAVC says there is no threat to the Constituion via the Article V convention.

2. The whole purpose of an Article V convention is to change the Constitution.

3. Article V is the vehicle by which the people exercise that course of action described in the Declaration of Independence. "..it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, ...."

[Foavccoordinator]

Mark let's not start misquoting even more historic documents. Every one knows the Declaration laid out rights and principles. The Constitution took those principles and put them into practical law and effect. Remember that wrote one, wrote the other. True the people have the right. The Constitution established how that right would be effected. That right was limited to a specific procedure of amendment so the people could do as described but within limits they created thus preventing chaos.

[fleck140]

My name is Mark Affleck. I am an IT professional. Look me up. I am an average American Joe with 3 kids that I would like to leave free.

[Foavccoordinator]

It's Live free, not leave free, Mark. Ditto. Any relation to Ben?

[fleck140]

I wonder if Bill Walker is intentionally trying to destroy our Constitution? If you google this man and read what is out there on different forums, he waffles quite a bit. He tries to convince you that the Constitution is safeguarded thru an Article V convention but read his own proposed amendments. It is shocking what this man would do. Term limits and recal are big with him. And he even referrs to future conventions beyond this one.

[Foavccoordinator]

Nice try you who won't even give out his name and debates on you tube. Let's have you post your name and email so that we can Google your background and amendment proposals. As to any amendment proposals, references please. And by the way, recall and term limits are big with a lot of people, and obviously I would expect there would be more than one convention, just as Congress passed more amendments past the Bill of Rights. Again with the trying to scare people with their own Constitution.

[thelema314]

How is the letter not also part of the public record? I don't see how it has less validity than other sources of Burger's ideas.  Even video can be faked.

[Foavccoordinator]

The letter is part of the record certainly. But as shown, it is a discredited part of the record. Therefore it must be ignored. If Burger actually didn't say the things in the letter meaning other public record shows he had a different meaning from what is quoted in the letter, then this discredits the letter not that it may exist or not but is it an authentic representation of what Burger actually believed and knew. It clearly is not so and must therefore be ignored.

[thelema314]

Your argument seems to be "I don't believe the letter authentic because I have other sources that seem to contradict it." If so, great. Keep researching and finding more data. But the part of your argument that resembles "evidence of past events could have been forged, so there's no way to prove that something happened in the past," makes me worry about your ability to do anything involving history. You won't/can't believe the letter is authentic, and I have every reason to believe it is.

[Foavccoordinator]

When Justice Burger is quoted in a public source saying something completely different than the letter says, that brings into question its authenticity. Saying the letter exists is one thing; saying Justice Burger actually wrote the comments and they were not doctored to present a view that his actual public statements do support is another. Public record show statements the letter does not reflect. In sum: Burger stated he did not think a convention was a threat as the letter seems to indicate.

[thelema314]

You may question its authenticity, as you've not seen the original. Would you like some photographs? I can try to capture the embossed seal in the top left corner of the letter. I can give better views of the signature. Maybe I can even invite you to our office to take a look at it in person. I have the feeling that this wouldn't change your mind - if so, have fun waiting till 2026.

[Foavccoordinator]

The problem isn't doubts you have a letter in 2009 but how does a photo prove it was written in 1988 and by whom? It can't. My coming to the office would only prove I see a piece of paper. But whether that paper is authentic has to be based on other evidence that supports its existence. That record of support is at best muddled. Statements in the letter are contradicted by other documented evidence credited to the supposed author. Forget the date. These contradictory statements concern me most.

[thelema314]

So the original letter isn't enough to authenticate it? You want a copy found in Burger's archives? I dunno if there even is one, that would require him duplicating every piece of correspondence. I don't speak for anyone but myself, and only entered this conversation to attempt to correct the record that this letter is real. I have no ability to debate you on behalf of JBS, PS, or WB on the subject of a con con. Don't mistake me for these other people.

[Foavccoordinator]

I do understand you speak for yourself. I hope you understand that based on this letter a federal lawsuit established the gov't can veto the Constitution--an official gov't act. Based on this letter the ability of the people to change that has been thwarted.There are issues of content that question its authenticity. At this point the only way to know for sure is to check Burger's files and by federal law there must be a copy in them. That is will be available in 2026.

[thelema314]

So now the problem is not that the letter is "phony." It's that people aren't quoting it accurately or with proper context. Catch them and correct them. Stop doubting this letter's authenticity.

[Foavccoordinator]

When you completely misrepresent what they have publicly stated and cannot show any reference other than your own as to the authenticity of this, it matters. When that misrepresentation leads to an official government policy by court order allowing for the gov't to be able to veto any part of the Constitution at will, it is absolutely serious. As to your other comment: you have been caught and corrected. Now refute the rest of our comments and maybe you'll be onto something. But there is more.

[thelema314]

I don't know about the letter being "a definitive resource of record" or "the constitution can be vetoed by the government", but any arguments about the letter being a fraud have no merit. The letter undoubtedly represents Burger's views on the issue. His authority to speak on the subject is of course a different matter. His writings can never be "irrefutable evidence" of what a con con will or won't do when called. They're only a learned man's professional opinion. But they are his opinion.

[Foavccoordinator]

If Burger is quoted accurately, fine. But he is not quoted accurately and in the book referred to this letter is made out to be the "holy grail" of the argument. Certainly many act as if it is. Including Mrs. Schlafly. Now you say it is only one man's opinion. Where is that stated on your website or in Mrs. Schlafly's editorials? Where is it stated Burger didn't see a convention as a threat which his quote fully states? Won't do. There has been too much damage done by it to not be accurate.

[thelema314]

For what it's worth, I'm the member of Phyllis Schlafly's staff that scanned this letter and two others for her website. The letter is dated June 22, 1988. I can't explain the 1983 date on your source, but the original is clearly 1988.

[Foavccoordinator]

First of all sources, not source. Second, in the 2005 book on Phyllis Schlafly, if you read footnotes 52, 53 for Chapter 11 on the AVC opposition to a BBA, you'll note even the author himself does not reference that letter/date but letters of 1986 and he had direct access to your files. Also there was yet another source I didn't use from 1996 saying the same thing: date--1983. That's four sources that don't agree with a 1988 date. Pretty hard to believe spread over 15 years all were typos.

[thelema314]

Not that hard to believe - the original letter has been in our basement archives for forever. It could be that the first electronic version had the typo and no one else looked at the original. As to Don's book, he admits that he didn't know of the letter's existence. There's a *lot* of materials in our archives, even our archivist finds new things from time to time.

[Foavccoordinator]

This letter has been the key argument used by Eagle Forum and JBS to oppose an AVC for 30 years. It has been cited, referred etc. countless times. That said, I find it impossible to believe it has "buried" in the archives. I also cannot believe he would refer to a letter and then give the wrong information on what has become the center piece of evidence for opposing a convention or that no one read his material before publication. If you are not accurate, there are consequences.

[thelema314]

Which is easier, coming to St. Louis to see the original or googling a typed copy on the web? Only now that a problem was discovered with the electronic version is there a reason to look back at the original. You're right, there are consequences. Whoever is responsible for the original electronic version should apologize for the mistake.  Do you want the letter to be banned as evidence because of a transcription mistake that no one noticed?

[Foavccoordinator]

That is up to you. But when you're going to establish the Constitution can be vetoed by the government you'd better have irrefutable evidence. This letter is not irrefutable. Beyond the date, more evidence shows Burger was misquoted in his "grand waste of time" statement. We also point out discrepancies and inconsistencies. You've not addressed these. All in all I'd say the Burger letter as the definitive resource of record for this issue is full of holes.

[nectarineblue]

We need to get the message out more and put an end to their propaganda

[Foavccoordinator]

We are making every effort to do so. Please feel free to spread the word by whatever means at your disposal.