Comments on the proposed Amendments to the Tennessee Constitution

These 4 proposed amendments to the Tennessee Constitution are on the ballot for the upcoming election on November 8, 2022:

In these evil times, when the wicked control governments, a prudent person is suspicious of everything they propose. I oppose all 4 of the proposed Amendments.

Constitutional Amendment #1

Question:

Shall Article XI of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new section?

It is unlawful for any person, corporation, association, or this state or its political subdivisions to deny or attempt to deny employment to any person by reason of the person’s membership in, affiliation with, resignation from, or refusal to join or affiliate with any labor union or employee organization.

Why I oppose it:

The purpose of Constitutions is to create governments and to define the powers of the government. In Constitutions, a free and prudent People don’t normally impose limitations or requirements on themselves! ¹

The “hook” in the proposed amendment is “any labor union”. That may be intended to gain the support of the “right to work” crowd.

But the proposed amendment would prohibit private Citizens and small private business owners from declining to hire people because of their affiliations. If I were operating a private school, I would not hire as a Teacher anyone who was a member of a Teachers Union. These Teachers’ Unions have been instrumental in corrupting the minds and morals of our Children; but this proposed amendment would not permit a private school owner to deny them employment in their private school!

And think of what could be encompassed by “employee organization”! What if Satanists form an “employee organization”? This proposed Amendment would prohibit anyone from declining to hire a member of the Satanist “employee organization”!

Private Citizens and businesses must have the freedom to hire or not to hire as they deem best. Do not give up that Right by approving Constitutional Amendment # 1.

Constitutional Amendment # 2

Article III, Section 12, of the Tennessee Constitution presently reads:

“In case of the removal of the governor from office, or of his death, or resignation, the powers and duties of the office shall devolve on the speaker of the Senate; and in case of the death, removal from office, or resignation of the speaker of the Senate, the powers and duties of the office shall devolve on the speaker of the House of Representatives.”

This is the proposed Amendment:

Question:

Shall Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language immediately following the current language in the Section?

Whenever the Governor transmits to the Secretary of State, the Speaker of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a written, signed declaration that the Governor is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, the powers and duties of the office of Governor shall be temporarily discharged by the Speaker of the Senate as Acting Governor, or if that office is unoccupied, then by the Speaker of the House of Representatives as Acting Governor, until the Governor transmits to the same officials a written, signed declaration that the Governor is able to discharge the powers and duties of the office.

Whenever a majority of the commissioners of administrative departments of the Executive Department transmits to the Secretary of State, the Speaker of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written, signed declaration that the Governor is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, the Speaker of the Senate shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting Governor, or if that office is unoccupied, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting Governor, until the Governor transmits to the same officials a written, signed declaration that the Governor is able to discharge the powers and duties of the office.

Whenever a Speaker is temporarily discharging the powers and duties of the office of Governor as Acting Governor, such Speaker shall not be required to resign the Speaker’s position as the Speaker or to resign as a member of the general assembly and shall retain the Speaker’s salary and not receive the Governor’s salary, but such Speaker shall not preside as Speaker or vote as a member of the general assembly during the time the Speaker is Acting Governor.

and

Shall Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language immediately before the period at the end of the Section?

except as provided in Article III, Section 12 with regard to the Speaker of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives temporarily discharging the powers and duties of the office of Governor as Acting Governor

and

Shall Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language at the end of the Section?

This section shall not apply with regard to the Speaker of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives temporarily discharging the powers and duties of the office of Governor as Acting Governor under Article III, Section 12.

Why I oppose it:

Why do they want to change the existing language to track the provisions of Sections 3 & 4 of the 25^th Amendment to the US Constitution?

Do you remember the chatter, during the Trump Administration, about invoking the 25^th Amendment to oust Trump from Office? In the event Tennessee ever gets a faithful and honest Governor who obeys our Constitution [as opposed to courting the “friendship” of the government of Communist China]; would these proposed amendments to the Tennessee Constitution be used to oust the honest Governor?

Constitutional Amendment # 3

Article I, Section 33 of the Tennessee Constitution currently reads:

“That slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, are forever prohibited in this state.” ²

Question:

Shall Article I, Section 33 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by deleting the section and substituting instead the following?

Section 33. Slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited. Nothing in this section shall prohibit an inmate from working when the inmate has been duly convicted of a crime.

Why I oppose it:

Why do they want to change the existing wording? What’s their agenda? What would the Amendment allow which the existing language of Article I, Section 33 prohibits?

I was raised in the “Jim Crow” South. When I was a child, my Father told me of black men who had been arrested and put to work for private Citizens who got their Labor for free. Specifically, that some wealthy people owned large pine tree forests and these black men were put to work in the pine forests doing grueling work such as making turpentine.

It is fine for able-bodied convicted persons to be put to work on public projects, such as picking up trash on the sides of roads; but it is wicked to permit convicts to be put to work to enrich private interests. We would do well to remember that such was done to Prisoners in NAZI Germany.

Whenever existing language in a Constitution is changed, the entire body of pre-existing court Opinions construing that existing language is done away with. And Courts can start afresh with a new interpretation of the new provision. The proposed Amendment would permit Courts to say that convicts may be put to work to benefit private interests.

Constitutional Amendment # 4

Article IX, § 1 currently reads:

Section 1. Whereas ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.

Question:

Shall Article IX, Section 1 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by deleting the section?

Why I oppose the Amendment:

In the early days of our Republic (and before that while we were Colonies), the States had their own “established religions” [i.e., tax-supported Churches]. It was the State Legislatures which decided what the “established religion” for their State would be. And, as in Connecticut, members of one denomination [Baptists] were forced to pay tithes to the Established Church of the State [the Congregational Church]. State Legislatures controlled by Protestants often discriminated against Roman Catholics. ³

Our own History shows the excellent reason for disqualifying clergymen from State Legislatures.

So why do they want to delete Article IX, § 1? What would the deletion permit? For starters, deletion would permit Ministers of the Church of Satan, clerics of religions antithetical to our Constitution, and such like, to be Members of the State Legislature.

Be prudent and be suspicious.

Endnotes:

¹ The 13^th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibited The People from owning slaves; but that Amendment was necessary because previously, the Constitution had authorized the institution of slavery; and in order to correct that defect in the Constitution, it was necessary to prohibit the People from owning slaves.

² The current language is similar to the language of the 13^th Amendment to the US Constitution.

³ See The Lie of “Separation of Church and State” & the U.S. Supreme Court’s Usurpations of Power.

Article V Convention Legislation filed in Congress shows how Applications will be counted: it’s not what Lobbyists promised you

By Publius Huldah (Joanna Martin, J.D.)

Legislation recently filed in Congress shows that the assurances pro-convention lobbyists have been making to State Legislators to induce them to apply to Congress for Congress to call a Convention under Article V of our Constitution are false.

These lobbyists have convinced too many State Legislators that our Framers said that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the solution is to get a convention to amend the Constitution. Our Framers never said such a silly thing!  But that is what is behind the push for an Article V convention.

Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amending the Constitution 1) Congress may propose amendments by two-thirds majority in both Houses; or 2) Congress, upon the applications of two-thirds of the State Legislatures, calls a convention where the Delegates may propose amendments. The second method has never been used – it’s dangerous!

Nevertheless, the pro-convention lobby has been assuring State Legislators that a Convention is perfectly safe because State Legislatures will control it: They will determine the amendments to be considered at the Convention; Congress can’t call a convention until Congress receives 34 applications from State Legislatures which ask for the same amendment; and Delegates to the convention may consider nothing but amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures.

If Congress calls a convention, would Congress or the Delegates to the Convention be constrained by the Lobbyists’ assurances to State Legislators?

Of course not! The Delegates – as Sovereign Representatives of The People – would have the self-evident Right, recognized by the Declaration of Independence, “to alter or to abolish” our “Form of Government.” Accordingly, Congress isn’t empowered by Article V or anything else in the Constitution to call a limited convention restricted to considering only the amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures.

And now, legislation consistent with this “self-evident Right” has been recently filed in Congress:

On July 19, 2022, Congressman Jodey Arrington of Texas introduced H.Con.Res.101, which calls a convention; and H.R. 8419, which sets forth how applications for a convention are to be counted.

These Resolutions show that the convention pushers’ assurances that Delegates to the Convention can do nothing but consider amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures, are false:

H.C.R. 101 §1(a) (1) says, “…Congress hereby calls a convention for proposing amendments…”

H.R. 8419 creates subsection (c) of 1 U.S. Code, § 106, which directs the Archivist of the United States to count all non-rescinded applications asking Congress to call a Convention; and to notify Congress of its duty to call a Convention when the Archivist receives non-rescinded applications for a Convention from two-thirds of the States.

H.R. 8419 doesn’t permit the Archivist to sort the applications by the amendments specified by State Legislatures. Instead, H.R. 8419 directs the Archivist to count all non-rescinded applications together.

One group pushing for a Convention has already admitted that Congress can “mix & match” the various applications for a convention: This group combined non-rescinded applications passed in 1789, several passed in 1861 to avert the Civil War, and during 1901 for popular election of US Senators with applications passed in recent decades for a balanced budget amendment. ¹

And the Archivist of the United States is, in effect, directed by H.R. 8419 to mix and match the various applications! If an application is non-rescinded, the Archivist is directed to count it to get to 34.

So H.C.R. 101 & H.R. 8419 really are consistent with the “self-evident right” of a People to alter or abolish their government and set up a new one. And they reveal that whoever drafted these Resolutions also understands that State Legislatures have no power to dictate what is considered by Delegates at the convention. In State Legislatures’ applications to Congress for a convention, they sometimes insist that they will control the convention (see p. 2, line 19 thru p. 7 of this application in the Pennsylvania Senate); but the Truth is that the Constitution sets forth what Congress has the power to do respecting an Article V Convention; and State Legislatures cannot change this by wishful thinking. And State Legislatures cannot dictate to Congress how Congress is to exercise a power the Constitution grants to Congress!

If Congress calls an Article V convention, you can be sure that a new Constitution will be imposed on us. ² The convention of 1787 was called “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. But the convention proposed a new Constitution which had a new mode of ratification and which created a new form of government. James Madison warned that those who secretly want a new Constitution would push for an Article V Convention under the pretext of “getting amendments”.

State Legislators need to open their eyes and see that while they are being used to get a Convention; they will have no power over the Convention; and won’t be able to do anything to stop a new Constitution with its own new mode of ratification from being imposed on us. State Legislatures must immediately rescind the applications for a convention they already sent to Congress.

Endnotes:

¹ At the time the “BBA” organization prepared their chart, the applications they counted were non-rescinded. They counted 33 States with active applications on file with Congress. But thankfully, after their Chart was published, several of the States listed on their Chart wised-up and rescinded their applications. Other States whose previous applications for a convention are still active better rescind them before the Archivist gets her hands on them!

² A member of Mark Meckler’s “COS” Legal Advisory Board, Princeton Law Professor Robert P. George, has already co-authored a new Constitution which grants massive new powers to a new federal government and imposes gun controls with red flag confiscations. Read it & tremble for your Country.