Topic: Constitutional Issues
The Rasmussen Reports Poll: Loading The Roll Of The Dice The article discusses inaccuracies of a recently released Rasmussen Reports poll concerning the Constitution.by Bill Walker
(libertarian)
Monday, June 15, 2009
A June 10, 2009 Rasmussen Reports poll of one thousand likely voters revealed some contradictory information regarding Constitution amendments. The poll stated 44% of those polled believe the Constitution does not restrict the government enough. However, the same poll reported, "Sixty-six percent (66%) say that no changes are needed in the document..."
Without wasting space for detail, mere reference to legislative balanced budget acts, excessive spending in government, ethics in government pronouncements always ignored by various administrations, and numerous Senate and House rules solemnly announced to the media later ignored at the first opportune political moment clearly illustrate the need to permanently curtail government excess. The only constitutional mechanism capable of doing this is constitutional amendment. Therefore, to achieve what Rasmussen Reports says is desired by 44% of those polled requires the 66% expression by these same people be ignored. Obviously, amendment changes the Constitution. How is this contradiction explained?
Restriction of the federal government more than the Constitution now imposes requires new amendments. Nearly half of those polled believe such restrictions (and therefore amendments), are needed. However these same people believe, by a nearly two thirds margin, "that no changes are needed in the document..." The actual text of the questions used in Rasmussen Reports poll explains this apparent contradiction presented in its story about its poll.
The actual text of the questions says, "Does the Constitution place too many restrictions on what government can do or not enough restriction on what government can do?" In answer to that question, 44% of those polled said the Constitution does not place enough restrictions on government.
Further, according to the poll, "by a 59% to 23% margin, voters say there is more danger today from a government that is too powerful rather than a government that is not powerful. Those with mainstream view overwhelmingly see a bigger threat from a too-powerful government. Among the Political Class, a plurality holds the opposite view." This statement contradicts another report by Rasmussen Reports which states, "The mainstream, or populist, view sees big government and big business as political allies rather than political opponents."
The public opinion company states, "The results [of mainstream view] change little whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge of the government." Obviously, if, by nearly 20 percentage points the mainstream view sees more danger in a government that is too powerful rather than not powerful enough, they certainly do not view "big government as political allies rather than political opponents." If both polls conducted by the same polling company are both correct, then it clear there has been a major shift in the opinion of mainstream America regarding its distrust of government as well as need for constitutional amendment to correct the matter. The only other possibility is the Rasmussen Reports story on its own poll is inaccurate.
There are several problems with this story by Rasmussen Reports. The story reports "Despite the desire for more restrictions on government, 93% of Americans say they would vote for the Constitution if it was on the ballot today." However according to the actual text of the questions asked by Rasmussen Reports, the story grossly misstates its own question. The 93% favorable "vote" on the Constitution is based on the question of "whether or not we should continue using the Constitution as the fundamental law of the United States." The story neglects to mention the key phrase of the question asked of those polled, whether those polled felt America should "continue using the Constitution as the fundamental law of the United States." The 93% vote of support was therefore for support of the Constitution remaining as the "fundamental law of the United States" rather than a popularity vote implied in the story's statement.
As the real question polled was whether the Constitution should remain as "fundamental law" of the United States, with no other terms or conditions mentioned, it is a reasonable implication to state the 93% support for the Constitution as "fundamental law" includes all of the Constitution. Thus, this support includes the Article V amendment process, which is part of the "fundamental law" of the United States. The conclusion is obvious; 93% of those polled favor the use of the amendment process, as it is part of the "fundamental law" of the United States.
The poll asked five questions. Only one of the questions actually addresses the issue of "changes" to the Constitution. A simple reading of the text of the question reveals, rather than it being an objective question, it is clearly written to obtain a specific result; in short a loaded question. The actual question used in the poll reads, "Which best describes you [sic] view towards changing the Constitution? Should it be left alone? Does it require minor changes or major changes? Or, should we scrap it and start over again?"
The text of the question clearly shows the ignorance as well as bias of Rasmussen Reports. In the first place, there is no such thing as "minor" or "major" changes to the Constitution. The Constitution is amended, not changed. All amendments in the Constitution have equal legal effect. Hence, there is no such thing as a "minor" or "major" change to the Constitution. By use of improper constitutional terminology substituting the word "change" for the correct term of "amendment" of the Constitution, Rasmussen Reports clearly demonstrates a fundamental ignorance about the Constitution. Further, as "change" implies a much broader effect than the word "amendment," it is clear Rasmussen Reports intended to inject bias in its question.
This is not the only example of bias in this question. The last sentence of the question clearly shows bias as well as ignorance. "Should we scrap it [the Constitution] and start over again?" Even Rasmussen Reports should know there is no provision in the Constitution whatsoever that permits the Constitution to be "scrapped." Implying the Constitution can be "scrapped" reveals a political bias of Rasmussen Reports, as it believes the Constitution may be terminated or "scrapped" by some undescribed means.
Only groups from the extreme political right, such as the John Birch Society, have ever advocated the Constitution can be scrapped. In their opposition to an Article V Convention one of their major arguments is a convention may write a new constitution. To arrive at this conclusion means JBS accepts the premise the Constitution may be "scrapped" in the first place. Once this premise is accepted, only then can JBS assign blame as to who can "scrap" the Constitution. Clearly, by the use of its biased question, Rasmussen Reports shares this extreme, erroneous political view with the John Birch Society. No correct thinking person who examines the facts regarding the Constitution can truly believe the Constitution can be scrapped by anyone or group including a convention. There is no provision whatsoever in the Constitution that in any manner allows the Constitution is "scrapped."
Given the errors and bias of this Rasmussen Reports poll in its questions, clearly Rasmussen Reports polls, in so far as providing accurate information regarding support of the Constitution or amending it, must be ignored as inaccurate, biased and contradictory. Further, as the questions asked by Rasmussen Reports clearly demonstrate an alignment with extreme political right groups that believe in scrapping the Constitution, the credibility and objectivity of Rasmussen Reports require careful scrutiny regarding opinions of amendment to the Constitution.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Bill Walker only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Bill Walker is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The John Birch Society believes in the U.S. Constitution. They strive for limited government where the government is restrained by law (the constitution) and the people are restrained by freely accepted moral codes such as the Ten Commandments. That's what America's Founders established and relied upon. That's what the Society tries to maintain.
The reality is that the Birchers are constitutional moderates, not extreme right as you say. But if you judge the group according to the lack of knowledge, lies, and attitudes of most Americans today, then I concede they are often viewed as right. But hardly extreme.
Since you don't understand the positioning of the different types of government I urge you to watch a 34 minute documentary film that discusses it. What is left wing- Oligarchy, communism and what's on the right- anarchy, and every thing in between. Total government to no government.
Please don't insult my or anyone else's intelligence by trying to suggest the John Birch Society is not an extreme right wing political group. Even Wikipedia refers to the group as "ultra conservative", "radical right" and "extremist organization". [link edited for length]
It is indiputable public record that the John Birch Society has led the fight to oppose an Article V Convention and it is again indisputable public record that the John Birch Society has time and again suggested the major reason a convention should not be held is it will write a new Constitution. I can quote literally from the John Birch Society web pages if needed to prove these statements but they are such general public knowledge that all I need do is ask anyone who has any doubts to Google John Birch Society along with constituitonal convention and start reading.
As to being "hardly extreme" the John Birch Society has always been extreme. Indeed a simple reading of the reference shows that because of their calling Dwight Eisenhower a communist, many conservatives couldn't support them.
"Constitutional Moderates"??!! Please. The Society as stated has advocated the overthrow of the constitutional form of government for over 30 years with its advocacy of not holding a convention when the Constitution requires it do so. It has stated a constitution can be rewritten or thrown out by a convention. To make that accusation requires on the part of the Society the acceptance of the fact first that the Constitution can be scrapped. It is simple logic. If you are going to accuse a body or person or group that it might do something it is simple logic that first you have to concede it can do it, that is whatever action you say the group will do can occur at all. In the case of the Article V Convention the JBS has stated over and over again a convention can scrap the Constitution; logically therefore the JBS believes the Constitution can be overturned and scrapped. As it supports that a convention can do this, it follows it must support that a convention can scrap the Constitution. Therefore they support scrapping the Constitution. They may oppose a convention doing it but that still leaves the fact that they believe the Constitution may be scrapped in the first place.
As to not knowing about the Birchers. I've been fighting them on the issue of an Article V Convention and obeying the Constitution for over 20 years and now given the fact the public record clearly shows the Congress is obligated to call a convention, see www.foavc.org., there is no question but all the Society is attempting to do is overthrow the constitutional form of government, i.e,. scrap it, by these efforts.
You cannot convince me or anyone else that the John Birch Society "believes in the U.S. Constitution" and then read the material they produce (including a video full of lies easily found on You Tube called "Beware of Article V" in which they urge the convention clause not be obeyed) which advocates it not be.
The JBS is viewed as extreme right because America has moved further and further left on the economic spectrum. America is currently sliding from fascism (which is state control of the means of production through regulation and taxation) to socialism (which includes state ownership of the means of production).
The JBS sits squarely where the founders were - at Constitutionally limited government with a free enterprise capitalist system. Seriously, watch the video and you will clearly see who is doing the deluding today and why.
And thank you Bill, for promoting Beware of Article V. People can see for themselves the fringe view that FOAVC takes to get a con-con called at all costs.
Your own words defeat you. First of all there is nothing "fringe" about obeying the Constitution and only in your extreme mind is it somehow viewed doing so is "extreme". How can the JBS "sit squarely where the founders were - at Constituitonally limited government" when you oppose using the Constituiton to limit government? The Founders created the Article V Convention so if JBS "sits squarely where the founders were then it follows logically they would support that which the Founders created--an Article V Convention.
Oh yeah and by the way notice in the poll that your position has only one percent support, that is scrap the Constitution while ours has 93 per cent support, keep it as the fundamental law. Remember, as I point out, and which you do not refute, the JBS advocates the Constitution can be scrapped meaning they believe in doing so. You cannot blame someone for something until you first accept that which you accuse them of doing can be done in the first place.
I'm not going to even comment on the fact you consider America to be fascist, if not now, then at some time in the past. It just shows how extreme the JBS really is, that one of its members would compare America to Hitler and Nazis. Your statement on this alone proves how extreme you and JBS are.
As to "Beware Article V" when those people go there to see it, they'll see the reply videos from FOAVC at You Tube. See link here: [link edited for length]
As to your website are you the third or fourth member of your group of ten people who are writing in?
And finally, to those reading please also go to [link edited for length] to read up on Stoptheconcon. You can post comments on our blog about them. They don't allow comments on their blog.
Bill Walker is just upset that the JBS has stopped him in his tracks at every turn for 20 years. When he says that he has been fighting the JBS for 20 years what he means to say is that he has been taken to the woodshed by JBS leadership for 20 years. I would say however that such success is only a minor story hardly worth much publicity. For much better stories google "Senator Frank Church" and "Senator Steve Symms." Check out theprogress of HR 1207, the Audit the Federal Reserve bill.
As for the claim that the Con Con already has enough state calls, know that such claim includes 1) A fringe interprepation of Article V that few legal scholars agree with and all courts have rejected AND 2) the 750 number includes countless duplicates and other fraud (e.g. Hiwaii) as to make it wholly unreliable.
Stopped me in my tracks? Robert you must be on some kind of gas.
Everytime the "leadership" of JBS is confronted on this, they have run. They have yet to produce one documented, factual reference to refute what has been stated by me and many others. The reason you think it is not worth the publicity is because you're afraid of what might happen to JBS and others when everybody finds out what liars they are.So you now try to divert people's attention away from it with stories about Frank Church or Steve Symms. I suggest you might want to just Google JBS Wiki and read the part about JBS calling Eisenhower a communist and how that caused so many conservatives to walk away from them when they realized how fanatical they were and are.
If anything FOAVC has stopped JBS in its tracks. No longer can you state for example the 1787 convention was a runaway because that's been disproved. Your so-called Burger Letter has been proved a phoney if for no other reason than the fact public record shows Burger supported an Article V Convention. The fact is that if your side was valid I shouldn't be able to find one flaw, one lie, one misstatement, one anything that I could use to defeat it. The reality is I've yet not find one thing that you people have told the truth about when it comes to Article V and a convention.
Now let me give you an example of what I mean. Robert states that I have made a "fringe" interpretation of Article V that few legal scholars agree with an all courts have rejected." Okay Robert, put up or shut up. Name me the courts you refer to where they have "rejected" that Congress must call a convention if a sufficent number of states apply and show me or refer me to the actual document of the court where the courts have stated catagorically under what terms and conditions a convention call must occur.
Second, you state the 750 applications consist of "countless duplicates and other fraud (e.g. Hiwaii[sic]) (It's Hawaii, Robert not Hiwaii) as to make it wholly unreliable." Again put up or shut up. Produce the public record showing the duplicates you refer to and proving that we have so published them and second, you allege "fraud" in a public record. That is a very serious charge and one that is of very great concern to me. If true it must be dealt with immediately. I'll give you 24 hours to produce evidence of it before I call the FBI to report that you have knowledge of fraud committed in the Congressional Record and refer them to you via Nolan Chart. It is a criminal offense to perpertrate fraud in the official records of the United States Government which includes the Congressional Record and it is also a criminal offense to withhold knowledge of said crime and fail to report said knowledge to the authorities. As you have brought it to my attention I have no choice but under the law to report your statement to them or be guilty of the same crime myself. You specifically cite that apparently the Hawaii application is a fradulent document. I'd suggest you be able to back that statement up that the state of Hawaii has in some manner engaged in fraud regarding its application to Congress.
Now either 1) retract your statement in this column that the records we have shown are fraudulent for all to read and see or 2) be prepared to back them up before an FBI investigation because all we've done is reproduce public record available for all to read and which can be verified at any public library. If that public record is fradulant then that must be dealt with by official government action and I'm sure you agree it is your duty as a citizen to report such crime.
That's the difference between JBS and people like yourselves and FOAVC. FOAVC uses official documented public record to prove its points. Your side uses nothing. And Robert, I'm not bluffing here. Tomorrow morning, my time, I will call the FBI and report your charges and statements unless you retract your statement publicly.
I'm not sure whether you will actually see this response but no matter. I'm sure you'll hear about it.
On June 22, 2009 I contacted the FBI at my local office. They in turn referred me to the U.S. Attorney in Hawaii where I reported your statement regarding fraudulent application.
On the same day following the receipt of my fax, the following letter was sent to me. Sorry for the delay but I don't check my mail every day.
June 22, 2009
Dear Mr. Walker:
We have received your letter dated June 22, 2009.
We will forward a copy of your letter to the investigative branch of the Justice Department here in Honolulu, which is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Honolulu Field Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 4-230, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96850.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Very truly yours,
Edward H. Kubo, jr.
United States Attorney
District of Hawaii
Robert, I owe you a deep thank you. As a result of your statement, grounds have been established for an official investigation by the Department of Justice regarding the applications. Naturally the FBI will not simply stop at the Hawaii application but of course will research the entire record.
In turn they are required by law to report their findings to the Department of Justice. Thus, at the minimum, the report will confirm officially the applications are authentic. Thus for the third time the government has affirmed by its action that these applications will be acted on by the government and will cause a convention.
The difference is this time you've caused a criminal investigation to occur. Our site will be examined by the FBI and the statements by the solicitor general will be noted. The bottom line is this the Department of Justice will be required to notify Congress officially that as a result of its criminal investigation sufficient applications exist to cause a convention call. It will also be required to report the statements of the lawsuits in question.
Unlike a civil investigation there is no standing in a criminal investigation. In short, you may have triggered a series of events ultimately causing Congress to call an Article V Convention that you alleged criminal violation of law regarding the applications thus triggering an official investigation authorized not under civil law but criminal law.
And if you think I'm full of it, refer to the letter above. U.S. Attorneys don't forward letters to the FBI for investigation if they don't believe there is no reason to do so.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
