Misinformation about the Convention of States Project has been spread far and wide across the Commonwealth. As Winston Churchill once said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Unfortunately, the same is true for plain old misinformation and conspiracy theories.[read_more]
My background is in constitutional law. Before I became involved with the Convention of States Project, I worked for several years as a staff attorney for The Rutherford Institute, protecting individual civil liberties from government intrusion. I have now dedicated over a year to studying and researching the law and history concerning Article V. Please allow me to set the record straight on some key points.
- An Article V Convention is not a “Con-Con.” A constitutional convention (or at least what most people mean and understand when they use that phrase) happens outside the scope of the prescribed rules of Article V of the Constitution. Remember—the 1787 Constitutional Convention was not called pursuant to some provision of the Articles of Confederation. It was called by the states, as individual sovereigns, for the very purpose of “render[ing] the Federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union.”
By contrast, an Article V Convention proceeds under the authority of Article V and is therefore subject to the prescribed process of Article V.
If what the states wanted was a “Con-Con,” why would they bother to go through the formalities of Article V?
- The problem we face is not a simple matter of the federal government “ignoring” or “refusing to enforce” the written Constitution, as some suggest. The problem is that the federal government has adopted expansive interpretations of the written Constitution that have effectively eviscerated the structural limitations on federal power.
Case in point: Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…” Reading this text on its face in a posture of intellectual honesty, it’s difficult to explain why it is so totally wrong for Congress to have unlimited spending power. To demonstrate why and how the Constitution does, in fact, limit Congress’ spending power, we have to rely on the history behind the Constitution and our understanding of the drafters’ purpose and intent.
But all that isn’t in the text. So the Supreme Court (believing that the drafters meant for them to interpret the Constitution according to the changing times) has interpreted this phrase as providing Congress with virtually unlimited spending power.
The Convention of States Project would allow us to clarify the actual, intended meaning of the General Welfare Clause in an amendment that limits federal spending power through clear, unambiguous language. Does anyone really think that is a bad idea?
- The Convention of States Project is supported not only by Mark Levin and Michael Farris, but by some of the nation’s leading conservative scholars and attorneys, including Chuck Cooper, Professor Randy Barnett, Professor Robert George, The Honorable C. Boyden Gray, Mat Staver, Mark Meckler, Professor Nelson Lund, Mike Huckabee, and many, many others. Please see The Jefferson Statement for biographical information on these experts.
- Many groups concerned about their Second Amendment rights have fallen for the idea that the Second Amendment could be repealed if the Convention of States Project succeeds. This suggestion is ludicrous. Not only would any weakening of the Second Amendment do the opposite of what is specified in our application, but 38 states (the requirement under Article V) would never ratify a weakening of the Second Amendment.
This argument is an underhanded scare tactic launched by those who choose to cower in fear rather than using our power to restore our Republic.
Which is more likely: that 38 states will ratify a repeal of the Second Amendment, or that within the next several years, 5 unelected Supreme Court Justices will “interpret” the Second Amendment in a way that dramatically restricts our right to keep and bear arms?
We need a constitutional amendment to restrain judicial tyranny through meaningful checks on the Court, thereby securing our Second Amendment rights. If we refuse to use Article V out of pure, unsubstantiated fear, we will be to blame when the courts “interpret” away our liberty.
The brave souls who fought a Revolution to free us from tyranny pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to that end. As we watch our federal government mutating rapidly into a socialist regime, are we really ready to balk at the prospect of a meeting of state representatives to merely propose amendments to restrain federal power?
If so, then there is more to fear than you have been told, because Congress holds this same power to propose amendments under Article V any day it is in session. And by and large, it doesn’t seem interested in restraining itself.
I urge each one of you who cares about the future of our country to shake off your fear and join me in supporting the Convention of States Project. It is the only tool in our arsenal powerful enough to restrain our runaway federal government.
For more information, visit www.conventionofstates.com.
263 comments
You are wrong the Constitution is a dead document anytime you try to use it to benefit a particular agenda its unconstitutional. President Trump promised to impose term limits he does not need a convention of states made up of volunteers who know nothing about the Constitution.
Lunacy is NOT doing what the Founders gave us the power to do… to secure our own liberty from an ever-tyrannical government unmoored from the Constitution.
The States’ Convention is the last resort, and it is something we all need to take seriously. Mark Levin’s book The Liberty Amendments spells out everything you need to know and proposes exactly what amendments need to be written into the Constitution in order to secure our future.
Continuing the madness of electing career politicians with absolutely no skin the game of real life as they ascend into Washington, free of the laws and regulations they impose upon the rest of us, is only going to result in more of the erosion of our individual rights and liberties.
The radical, wingnut Left is opposed to this, but they have their lobbyists involved just in case it does happen. These are the agents you see exposed in the videos posted by the opposition. Clearly George Soros and Co. also has a vested interest in spreading misinformation about the convention. Soros wants a handful of politicians he can buy, and if we limit the power of those politicians, we limit his power as well.
America is reaching a breaking point. Something must be done. There is no integrity in Washington anymore, and the People have lost all faith in the election process. If fear is your only reason for not taking Article V seriously, then stay out of it and let the grown-ups do what needs to be done.
MUST SEE
http://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2013/12/09/exposing-the-convention-of-the-states-cos-as-an-article-v-constitutional-convention/
Let’s see if this comment gets deleted AGAIN.
it’s a 3 minute video taken by a vid-cam which was inadvertently left on. It records the TWO PAID LOBBYISTS FOR THE “COS” PROJECT CONTRADICTING THE COS PROJECT’S OWN CLAIMS IN ORDER TO EXTORT THE COOPERATION OF A NEVADA STATE LEGISLATOR IN SUPPORTING THE COS.
It’s the COS movement’s claim that an Article V cnvention’s voting will be 1 vote for each state.
There is NOTHING ANYWHERE to justify this fabricated claim. They keep telling the same lie until people believe it. NO ONE can know in advance what will be the voting procedure decided upon.
HOWEVER, these 2 PAID PROFESSIONAL LOBBYISTS are trying to work on this Nevada state legislator to help push his state’s legislature to apply to Congress for an Article V convention. Listen. They are claiming that Nevada will not have much say at the convention if they are not one of the states who requested it in the first place. LYING ABOUT THEIR OWN LIE in order to motivate (extort) and manipulate the behavior of a state legislator.
What kind of dishonest, crooked, charlatan scum would be involved in a program to achieve their means by deception? ANSWER: The same kind who are deceiving countless conservatives about the “COS” with their 100% FICTIONAL narrative of US history which bears no relation to the facts.
The video speaks for itself — assuming it’s not deleted AGAIN from this thread, where several PROOFS of that the COS Project’s version of history and of Article V’s meaning falsehood have been censored by deletion.
PLEASE check every”fact,” quote, and assertion YOURSELF at the original source or you will become a “useful idiot” supporting our worst enemies, and slitting your own throat, as well as the throats of you children, grandchildren and other loved ones.
Watch this 3 minute video.
The COS movement has paid lobbyists. Who pays them? No answer.
Who funds the non-profit “The COS Project?” No answer.
Who pays the high salaries of The COS Project’s leadership? No answer.
Why does The COS Project’s leadership have periodic “strategy sessions” or “planning conferences” which are kept secret, no press allowed, no one but the few leadership individuals involved, no minutes, no audio, no video allowed?
Who are these people, most of whom have suddenly burst on the political scene from obscurity, to form a virtually INSTANT national organization within moments after its birth, fully funded by unknown sources?
And why do they need professional paid lobbyists to go around lying ot state legislators on tape in this video, caught when the vid-cam was inadvertently left on? Why are lobbyists paid to scare state legislators into doing what the COS leadership wants them to do, by telling state legislators a story TOTALLY AT ODDS with the official position of the COS movement — a position which itself has zero support and is just another example of the fictional nature of almost everything the COS leadership says?
(One of their many lies is that at an Article V convention the voting will be 1 vote per each state. This is simply made up. There is no basis for thinking this whatsoever. There are thousands of possible ways the voting could be set up for the convention, MANY thousands of ways, and NONE are specified ANYWHERE (except in the COS advocates’ literature. Somehow they are the only mind readers and psychics who can foretell what hundreds of people think and how their voting will come out.
LIsten to their paid lobbyists trying to convince a Nevada state legislator that his state will be denied the influence at the convention which it deserves if they don’t . . . in effect . . . support an Art V convention now by applying for one to Congress.. This is extortion, with a lie being used to exact it.
These crooks and scam artists and con men will stoop to anything to get their convention because they are imposters or dupes of the imposters who pose as conservatives, but who are out to destroy the Constitution.
WAKE UP.
In her article, Rita Dunaway states that
” . . . the 1787 Constitutional Convention was not called pursuant to some
provision of the Articles of Confederation. It was called by the states,
as individual sovereigns, for the very purpose of ‘render[ing] the
Federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union.’ ”
This is not true.
She claims to have a “background in Constitutional Law” and to have researched, for over a year, the law and history of Article V. Either she does not know the difference between “calling for” a convention and “calling” a convention.
After the ineffective convention of 1786 which WAS called by a few states, several states called FOR another convention. Some of them asked the Continental Congress to call one. It did, in February of 1787.
Anyone can “call for” anything. When someone says “There oughta be a law . . . ” they are “calling for” a law about whatever it is they’d like to see. They are expressing a WISH or REQUEST that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE (or someone or some particular entity) DO SOMETHING. The person or people or institution which ACTUALLY BEGINS THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT SOMETHING, BY GALVANIZING THE PROCESS WHICH CREATES IT AND TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTUALLY DOING IT, who brings together the necessary people and conditions which CREATE the event itself, are who “called” it.
The states called the FAILED 1786 convention. Because it failed, they called FOR another one and requested the Continental Congress to call it. The Continental Congress called one for the “sole and express purpose” of proposing changes to the Constitution (our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation). They set a date (May 2, 1787), the place (Philadelophia) and the states sent delegates to it (except for Rhode Island).
Ms Dunaway relies on a complete irrelevancy to create a non-existent difference between that convention and the one she would like to see today under Article V. Because the Articles of Convention did not have a specific clause like Article V in it, that makes them different. That’s patently ridiculous, on its face.
The Congress is the legislature, the law making body. It was the creation of the states when they drew up the Articles of Confederation just as our current congress is the creation of the states who send delegates to the 1787 convention.
Article V provides two PROCEDURES describing HOW amendments to the Cnstitution may be made, and one of them MIMICS ALMOST TO A TEE THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS CALLED THE 1787 CONVENTION.
No one can stop anyone from calling a Constitutional Convention anyway. It is our right, under the Declaration of INdependence, to alter or even abolish our government if we choose. Anyone can exercise his right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to call for and/or to call (actually arrange for) a meeting, conference or convention to discuss or propose changes to their government. And whatever reason they first decide to have such a convention, they are free to come up with any ideas or proposals their hearts desire.
This has been affirmed by expert after expert throughout US history. A convention is the expression of people who are being governed, and THEY are the repository and source of ALL rights. A convention is acknowledged (by those who themselves are acknowledged by history as the greatest constitutional experts of history) as THE HIGHEST law making body of all, higher even than the constitution under which it might (or might not) be called.
The acknowledged authority of the time was Black’s Law Dictionary, which defines a CONSTITUTIONAL Convention as any convention called for or called by any government branch or body whose purpose is to examine or suggest or propose any changes whatsoever to a current constitution. “ANY” is in front of every act and person or entity involved. It’s simple English: a CONSTITUTIONAL convention is ANY convention that deals wsith ANY aspect of the constitution. If it deals with some aspect of the Constitution, it’s a Constitutional Convention. Simple.
Article V’s second of two described procedures involves a convention which CONGRESS “shall call,” just as the Continental Congress called the 1787 convention.
Rita is trying to have it both ways. She claims that the 1787 convention was called by the states. Can you believe it? She calls an Article V convention a “COS” or “convention of states” which NO ONE HAS EVER CALLED IT BEFORE IN US HISTORY until very recently, and says that IT is different from the 1787 “con con,” and then in another context, she makes a very emphatic insistence on the importance of the fact that the 1787 convention WAS CALLED BY THE STATES!!
We have an Article V which explicitly says that upon REQUEST of enough states (ie, their “applications” to congress) the CONGRESS “shall” then be obliged to call a convention.
IE, ARticle V, which gives CONGRESS the power to call the convention, is a “Convention of States” according to RITA. But she emphasizes elsewhere that this is totally different from the 1787 constitutional convention, because THAT convention was CALLED BY THE STATES. But it was NOT a “convention of states” even though all its delegates were indeed selected by the individual states. Meanwhile, an Article V convention, which is EXPLICITLY to be called by Congress, is according to Rita a “Convention of States.”
NOW do you understand how frustrating it is to deal with the “cos” advocates who are twisting words to such impossible and preposterous extremes to make a case that is equally preposterous and absurd — and capitalizing on the lack of knowledge of history of many people to convince them of something that is patently untrue?
Just recently the Assembly of State Legislatures met in Washington DC and notes from their meeting show that in preparing for a possible Artricle V convention, they wish it to have delegates drawn from our House, Senate, and include also federal Judges.
Rita and the COS leadership keep telling us that it will be the state legislatures who control the Article V convention. But we now find out that the Assembly of State Legislators wants federal judges and members of CONGRESS to be delegates to that convention.
We told you so. The COS pushers are not being honest – to put it very politely.
They deny that the 1787 Convention is a precedent for a modern Article V cnvention because it was a “runaway” convention and an Article V convention CAN’T be, since it will be controlled by the states.
Yet we now see that, as WE told you many times, there is NOTHING in Article V’s language saying that, and in fact Art V explicitly gives CONGRESS the EXCLUSIVE authority to call (arrange the details of) an Article V convention. Meanwhile, they deny that Congress called the 1787 convention when it most certainly DID do so, but the Continental congress — in specifying the details — told the states to choose the delegates, which they did do. Yet it was NOT a “convention of states” according to Rita while an Article V convention IS, even though we find that the Assembly of State Legislators is acting on the assumption that CONGRESS will call the Article V convention too, JUST AS THE 1787 CONVENTION WAS CALLED, but this time, the state legislators are planning to ALLOW MEMBERS OF OUR CORRUPT CONGRESS TO BE DELEGATES TO IT, AS WELL AS FEDERAL JUDGES!!
In short, just about everything the COS pushers say is untrue. They made up the idea of a “conventin of states” and intentionally confused and misinterpreted history to create their fictional narrative. The truth is that, if anything, it was the 1787 convention that was FAR closer to what these people describe as a “convention of states” than an article V convention would be!!
If an ARricle V convention is called, then BOTH it AND the 1787 Convention will have been called by Congress. The 1787 Convention’s delegates WERE chosen by the states because Congress told them to select the delegates for teh convention Congress was calling. The ARticle V convention WILL HAVE DELEGATES FROM CONGRESS AND THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, it now appears, and WE have warned that this was possible all along, while the COS leadership has denied its possibility. Meanwhile, it wsa teh 1787 Convention that was told it wsa being called “solely and expressly” for the purpose of recommending amendments and changes to our 1st constituion (the Articles of Confederation were our 1st Constitution). But Artricle V, while it does say that it is providing the procedure for amendments, does NOT say so anywhere near as emphatically as the congressional mandate to the 1787 delegate, that that was SOLELY AND EXPRESSLY the purpose of their mission at the convention.
Yet the COS leadership tells us that was a “con con” and Article V is oh, so different, when in fact all the assurances they give about Article V, and the way they describe it, APPLY MORE TO THE 1787 CONVENTION which they call a “con con” and deny it was a “cos” even though it has far more characteristics of what tehy define as a “cos” then their own “cos” does!!!
SUMMARY
So the one she claims was called by the states was not, and the one she claims is being called by the states is not.
She and the COS leaders say the 1787 Convention was called by the states, but it was called by the Continental Congress.
She and the COS leaders say that an ARticle V convention is one called by the states, but it will be called by Congress.
She and the COS leaders say that the states will control the Art V convention but we now have PROOF IN HAND that it will not be, since even the state legislators want federal judges and members of our corrupt congress to be delegates.
She and the COS leaders say that the 1787 convention was NOT a “convention of states” even though all the delegates WERE selected by the states (because congress told them to do the choosing).
She and the COS leaders describe all the above as things which give us protection from a “runaway” convention, like the 1787 convention, but AN ART V CONVENTION IN FACT DOES NOT HAVE THESE PROTECTIONS, AND IN FACT THE 1787 HAD MORE OF THEM THAN AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION WOULD.
She and the COS leaders call the 1787 convention a “con con” and say that this is oh, so differfent from a “convention of states” based on a completely irrelevant minor difference. The say that the 1787 convention was NOT a “convention of states” even though all its delegates were teh selections of their individual states. They say that an Article V convention IS a “convention of states” even though in fact its delegates will be selected in a manner that our corrupt CONGRESS chooses, and which even many state legislators are ALREADY saying they wish to include federal judges AND MEMBERS OF OUR CURRUPT CONGRESS as delegates to.
She and the COS leaders say IN ANOTHER CONTEXT (see the early part of Rita’s own blog above) that the 1787 convention was called by the states (it was NOT), but then elsewhere deny that it was a convention of states, even though they’ve said it was called by the states, and even though its delegates were selected by the states.
Meanwhile they call and Art V convention a “Conventin of States” even though it will be called by Congress and its delegates, it now appears to be CERTAIN, will include members of our corrupt congress and federal judges — as WE, the opposition to these charlatans, have told you all along.
There is MUCH more to say but I’ll rest my case here for the time being.
The author of the article has apparently removed my post here which reported on a new development which FACTUALLY proves the “COS” position 100% wrong with 100% certainty. This is typical behavior from the “COS” people. When something they cannot refute is posted, or something very very convincing is posted on their site, in a thread on FB, or a comment after an article like this one, or a website, they simply delete it.
My post here yesterday is the second one which has been deleted. If this site is like others, when a guest author’s article is published, the author does not have authority to permanently ban a person, as many “COS” sites are infamous for doing to knowledgeable adversaries at their own sites, BUT the author is empowered to delete specific comments.
You know that the COS position is that the states will run the convention and send their own delegates there, presumably from their own legislatures. This is obviously false from the language of Article V but the “COS” propaganda refers to historical precedent — erroneously BTW — and the precedent would not be binding anyway even if entirely true — and furthermore until the recent advent of the latest push for an Article V convention, everyone in US history understood that under Article V it would be CONGRESS who determines the nature of the convention, choosing its time and place and the method of delegate selection, etc. That’s what Article V says in very simple, obvious, straightforward language. But the “COS” people just disregard this and come up with a false rigamarole allegedly showing that the convention will be run by the states WHICH HAS NOW BEEN PROVEN FALSE BY ACTUAL PREPARATORY ACTION FOR THE CONVENTION BY THE STATES, WHO THEMSELVES ARE ALMOST AS CORRUPT AS CONGRESS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOLD THEIR SOULS FOR A MESS OF FEDERAL POTTAGE. The proof is this:
Here is an excerpt from a letter sent to his constituents by Virginia State Senator Richard Black (sent also to all voters in the State and to others around the nation). It refers to his recent letter to constituents, other Virginia voters and others nationwide and can be seen in its entirety here:
http://secure.campaigner.com/Campaigner/Public/t.show?7vx59–3x1gz-i06dam8&_v=2
I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU READ HIS ENTIRE LETTER AT THE LINK JUST ABOVE, but here’s an excerpt from it regarding the notes he RECENTLY obtained from a meeting of 50 STATE LEGISLATORS which took place in Washington DC on Dec 9 to discuss and make early plans for an Article V convention. The excerpt from the Senator’s letter is between the two lines of asterisks:
**********************************************************************************
Planners Are Already Moving to Loosen Restraints on the Scope of a Convention:
“Assembly of STATE Legislatures” is a group of legislators planning the Article V
Convention. About FIFTY state legislators met December 9, 2014 in
Washington DC. Notes from this meeting show that lawmakers
TABLED a motion to restrict the scope of the Convention to only the subject
matter of the state applications, and also
REJECTED a motion which would have prevented congressmen and senators, federal judges and governors from serving as delegates to the Convention.
This is an early indication that politicians want to have a more open process and may
want to appoint members of Congress, the US Senate and federal judges to amend the Constitution.
*********************************************************************************
This proves that even state legislators intend to open up the convention exactly as everyone has known would happen for 200 years until the most recently revived push for an Article V convention by the left and a few unwitting conservatives who have fallen for their FICTIONAL NARRATIVE ABOUT IT BEING STRICTLY A “CONVENTION OF STATES” — a term used only loosely once or twice in history to describe what everyone understood to be a constitutional convention, and which is defined as one in Black’s Law Dictionary of that era.
Amongst MANY other contradictions with the universally accepted views by all experts of the past 200+ years which the new “COS” re-write of history claims are true, are these two:
1. The states will control the convention
2. The convention’s scope will be strictly limited to the amendments the states had proposed for it in their applications to congress for the Convention.
From the above, we now see that both of these are 100% FALSE, as I and countless others have tried to explain to those who are still under the sway of the false narrative created by the “COS” advocates.
Note that in a private meeting of 50 STATE LEGISLATORS in Washington DC, they are preparing what they wish to do if asked by Congress or permitted by Congress to have a say in constructing the convention, and even the NATIONAL GROUP “The Assembly of STATE Legislators” wish the convention to have an open agenda, AND they wish to push for having FEDERAL CONGRESSMEN, SENATORS, AND JUDGES INCLUDED AS DELEGATES TO THE CONVENTION.
They, too understand the truth, 100% consistent with the simple language of Article V which gives the states only TWO powers w/regard to this convention option:
1. To force Congress to call a convention and
2. To ratify its output ASSUMING THE CONVENTION ITSELF DOES NOT CHANGE THE RATIFICATION PROCEDURE WHICH IT HAS THE UNQUESTIONABLE AUTHORITY TO DO.
Why don’t you read the opinions of the Framers as they gave it themselves, in context, in COUNTLESS places and just TRY to find, ANYWHERE IN THE 200+ YEARS AFTER 1787, an explanation of Article V that even remotely agrees with the claims of the very recent “COS” movement. YOU CANNOT BECAUSE IT IS COMPLETELY WRONG AND FALSE.
Here we now have the Assembly of STATE Legislators discussing what THEY wish if the convention is called, and it is EXACTLY WHAT THE “COS” LEADERSHIP HAS BEEN TELLING YOU CANNOT HAPPEN. They want FEDERAL JUDGES and also MEMBERS OF OUR CORRUPT CONGRESS to be delegates to the convention.
I’ll bet you will NOT see this news reported at ANY “COS”-advocacy site, because just as Rita has deleted two of my comments here, and just as this is very common practice at MANY COS websites, blogsites, and FB pages, the news, the facts, and the arguments are censored or deleted when they offer too convincing an argument for the truth, or some fact which provides too-convincing evidence or proof that their claims are false.
I urge you to go to the link above before the information in this comment is again deleted by Rita.
I
Well well well look who all supports an Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments….
https://movetoamend.org/organizations
Yep Hoosurgirl. Code Pink, Sierra Club, Progressive Democrats of America, Center for Media and Democracy, Vermont for single-payer, Occupy Wall Street and a few more notables are not insignificant groups. The convention movement started on the left and is still supported by the left.
In a New York Times Magazine in a 2009 piece about so-called liberal justice, a law professor wrote: “If this new understanding of legal liberalism can be traced back to a single moment, it was in April 2005, when the American Constitution Society and other progressive groups sponsored a conference at Yale Law School called ‘The Constitution in 2020.”
George Soros funded that conference which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.
The Yale event on the Constitution was also sponsored by the American Constitution Society. The ACS is the main organization behind the movement to ensure a more “progressive” constitution, having received more that $2,201,500 from Soros’ Open Society since 2002.
Info here:
http://www.hear-us-now.com/2011/08/george-soros-assault-on-us-constitution.html
And here:
http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/280277/
And here: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17402-socialists-and-soros-fight-for-article-v-convention
At a more foundational level, the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence lays out the inherent right to “alter or abolish” a form of gov’t. Should Congress call a convention, the second paragraph of the Declaration leaves the door open for an entirely new constitution to be proposed. Whatever purposes may be declared in any call from Congress can then lawfully be ignored. Whatever limitations each state may lay out for delegates may also be lawfully ignored. The Declaration of Independence maintains an inherent, fundamental right to “alter or abolish” our current Constitution. This scenario has already been played out in history. The last call was for delegates to “revise the Articles of Confederation.” This call was ignored, and an entirely new constitution was written, which became our current constitution. Ignoring the instructions given in the call for the convention was lawful due to the inherent, fundamental right stated in our Declaration of Independence to “alter or abolish” a form of gov’t. If a call for any convention occurs today, that same inherent, fundamental right to “alter or abolish” remains just as valid now as it was then. Thus, the possibility of a new constitution coming out if this cannot be excluded. For that reason, I cannot support the idea of any convention. I can’t trust the idea. The founding fathers aren’t here to protect us.
The only word I can disagree with is the “if” near the end of the 3rd-from-last line of your comment, which is obviously a typo, and intended to be “of.” (If you read any of my comments below, you will not take this even as the slightest criticism, since the number of typos in mine vastly exceeds your one.)
We keep telling them so, but they won’t listen. HERE IS PROOF, ABSOLUTE PROOF, OF WHICH SIDE IS RIGHT IN THIS DEBATE between INFORMED, KNOWLEDGEABLE CONSTITUTIONALISTS AGAINST THE CHARLATANS:AND POSEURS AND PINOs (Patriots In Name Only, such as Rita Dunaway, Mark Meckler, Rob Natelson, Mark Levin, Bob Menges, Michael Farris, and others):
Here’s FACTUAL PROOF that Rita Dunaway’s and The COS Project’s and every other Article V Convention advocate’s claims about the convention are 100% WRONG. They could NOT have failed to know that something like this was much more than just possible. They have claimed this to be IMPOSSIBLE. And here it is. I’ll bet you will not find any report on this DC meeting of legislators from the states. They tend to be extremely allergic to facts which do not support their fantasies:
“Urgent: Virginia’s vote on calling a Constitutional Convention.
“Virginia State Senator Richard H. Black sent out an URGENT statement to his
constituents and to all Virginians and to the rest of the nation. The
warning states, “Virginia will vote to change the Constitution of the
United States in a few days!” I encourage all to read this very well
written and concise plea.
“Here is an excerpt from his letter: “Planners Are Already Moving to LOOSEN RESTRAINTS ON THE SCOPE of a Convention:
“Assembly of State Legislatures” is a group of legislators planning the
Article V Convention. About fifty state legislators met December 9,
2014 in Washington DC. Notes from this meeting show that STATE LAWMAKERS
TABLED A MOTION TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION
to only the subject matter of the state applications, and also . . .
“REJECTED a motion which would have PREVENTED CONGRESSMEN, SENATORS, FEDERAL JUDGES, AND GOVERNORS from serving as delegates to the Convention.
“This is an early indication that politicians want to have a more open process and may
want to APPOINT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, THE SENATE, AND FEDERAL JUDGES AS DELEGATES to the convention to amend the Constitution.”
“See details here:
http://secure.campaigner.com/Campaigner/Public/t.show…
“COS grassroots, it’s not too late to change direction.”
secure.campaigner.com
Lunacy is doing the same thing and expecting different results. DC will not fix DC. The power elites of Washington are acting in their interest, the American Citizen be damned. I say it’s time the citizenry of Virginia to come together in solidarity against a corrupt Federal leviathan.
This “writer” is a doubletalk expert. She refers in various ways to the limits, but even a cursory reading informs one that anything may be proposed as a amendment at such convention as described in article V. The ratification process would not be the tempered voting of registered voters in State after State, as each saw fit, as we have utilized for centuries.
Such a convention, sans procedural rules and regulations, sans leaders elected by due process, would be a start-up, led by who knows whom, regulated by no prescribed processes.
To those who claim otherwise I say, show me where the rules and processes are delineated and approved by Constitutional articles.
If the comments and votes on this article and the other article are any fair indication of how conservatives view this issue, it doesn’t look too good for COS. If the Legislature votes for this anyway, I might be tempted to think it has something to do with campaign contributions…
Congress and the President have ignored the Constitution for decades.
What they do is almost always unconstitutional.
How do you fix THAT by changing the Constitution?
Show me: how is this limited? One cannot because it is not limited.
It is a Con Con.
The Constitutional Convention of the 1780s was not termed a constitutional convention before hand now, was it? No, it was a wild, wide open house. They wanted to fix the Articles of Confederation. Instead they decided to throw out the Articles.
Fortunately we had an Adams, a Madison, a Franklin, a Washington, a Hamilton, and others. Does anyone see statesmen of that caliber anywhere today? Maybe Dr. Ron Paul, or Senator Jim DeMint, but The great Dr. Paul is not even taken seriously by the non-thinkers, the unions and the Statists.
I doubt the lefties would fail to outlaw guns, would soon allow unwarranted police searches, and immediately muzzle the press. The majority is on the Federal nipple, as Romney so painfully noted…and telling the truth about that cost him the election. No ConCon, or CS. Repeal the 16th and 17th and 26th amendments. The 16th gave us the Banksters, the 17th eliminated States rights, and the 26th gave (18 Y.O. vote) gave us two terms of Obama. The founders were too smart to allow 18 year olds to vote, but we thought if they could go fight and die in illegal wars, they should be allowed to vote. WRONG!!!
Simply, the 10th is a safe way to accomplish our needs. It is ignored for a reason. Why? I submit as an analyst because the solution protects the Constitution and is so simple, it takes nothing but a letter of refusal.
This note is to gain your thoughts on what I see as a end run on the Constitution via a
Constitutional Convention, ( or whatever they call it now ).
In my work, I have been assisting Publius Huldah in her quest to inform Americans
pursuant to a convention of the states ostensibly to amend the Constitution.
Publius Huldah’s short bio for your consideration.
Publius Huldah is a retired litigation attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree,
she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge).
She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent.
She shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions
and beliefs. She also shows how The People can, by learning our Founding Principles themselves, restore our
Constitutional Republic.
At the request of PH, I built the below slide sets for use at online websites and venues, Corporate and for busy people in their
daily lives. They are meant to lower the detailed verbal threshold, and educate in the major points without getting immersed
in the deflection of detail.
In any case, please review the sets, and then read the below notes I have included. Item three is part of the below notes, because
of the paramount relationship to the false flag drive to sucker the states, with an easy out. Nullification is so simple it appears
no one can believe it, and some leftist authors as far back as 1800 have tried to delegitimize the issue.
1. See: http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/43667345
2. See: http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/41085340
3. See: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huldah/150119
PH has been vigorously defending the Constitution. That being said, the issue of Nullification, which I believe to be
the answer, has been ignored totally, and what we have been in is the usual Left/Right messaging nightmare. We must
shift to driving them off their argument, and opening the situation up to scrutiny, by the general citizenry.
a. Fifty years ago, the Ford & Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. It is ratified by a referendum called by the President [Art 12, Sec. 1]. If we have a convention, and Delegates propose the Newstates Constitution, it doesn’t go to the States for ratification – it goes directly to the President to call a Referendum. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Read the Newstates Constitution and tremble for your country.
b. The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.
c. The Constitution 2020 movement is funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law professors and Marxist groups all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder. They want a Marxist Constitution and they want it in place by the year 2020. It further appears that Soros is funding much of the current push for an Article V convention.
Somemisc. quotes I found in digging for a few hours last night
#. James Dale Davidson ( Time Mag. )has been at the forefront in pushing for a Con-Con for decades and used to give $100,000 per year towards that cause. He was also one of the initial board members on Newsmax along with CFR members Alexander Haig and Arnaud de Borchgrave.
#. In the next to last paragraph Meckler says, “I understand your fear of people messing with the Constitution. It is not irrational, and not wrong to feel protective of the document. But we must also remember what many of the founders and especially Thomas Jefferson said to us, “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of a preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment…” Again, he did not think it good to change them frequently or for small reason. But he would have been vehemently opposed to the idea that amendments should not be considered nor discussed openly.”
http://www.newsfocus.org/trilateral_commission.htm
below snippets from the above article.
#. Regarding the consolidation process of the New World Order, Sutton and Wood commented, “In September 1974 Brzezinski was asked in an interview by the Brazilian newspaper Vega, ‘How would you define this new world order?'” Brzezinski answered, “We need to change the international system for a global system in which new, active and creative forces–recently developed–should be integrated. This system needs to include Japan, Brazil, the oil producing countries, and even the USSR…” When asked if Congress would have an expanded or diminished role in the new system, Brzezinski declared, “The reality of our times is that a modern society such as the U.S. needs a central coordinating and renovating organ which cannot be made up of six hundred people.”
#. Sutton and Wood wrote that the Trilaterals wanted to assemble, “a national constitutional convention to re-examine the nation’s formal institutional framework,” in order to open up “a national dialog on the relevance of existing arrangements… The needed change,” said the Trilaterals “is more likely to develop incrementally and less overtly.” Brzezinski himself declared, “International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”
http://www.4rie.com/rie%201.html
This site is incorrect only on the dates of coming events.
#. “Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.” – Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates.
http://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2013/12/09/exposing-the-convention-of-the-states-cos-as-an-article-v-constitutional-convention/
Just click on the above to see the groups list as proponents.
#. The Constitution has been a target from its very inception. In the mid 1800s, the American Fabian Society wrote in its journal that the Constitution was too highly individualist to allow for the gradual implementation of socialism. In the 1950s, the World Constitution and Parliamentary Association was calling for a world constitutional convention. They’ve been at it ever since and one of the Constitutions slated for inclusion in the Convention is theirs and it would help introduce a world constitution.
#. “In this unhappy state of affairs, few people retain much confidence in the more ambitious strategies for world order that had wide backing a generation ago—’world federalism,’ ‘charter ‘review,’ and ‘world peace through world law.’… If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there?… In short, the ‘house of world order’ would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”
– RICHARD GARDNER, member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), “The Hard Road to World Order”, (Foreign Affairs, 1974)
Consider who has been chosen to represent Virginia to the pro constitutional convention deliberating body, Delegate LeMunyon who voted for the biggest tax increase in VA history and Delegate Lingamfelter who also voted for that tax increase and who voted in 2004 to rescind all previous calls by VA for a convention on the grounds that it is too risky. Now he has prefiled a motion FOR one. It’s the same thing – he just flip flopped.
Should we trust them to rewrite our constitution?
Virginia State Senator Richard H. Black sent out an URGENT statement to his constituents and to all Virginians and to the rest of the nation the warning state, “Virginia will vote to change the Constitution of the United States in a few days!” I encourage all to read this very well written and concise plea.
Here is an excerpt from his letter: “Planners Are Already Moving to Loosen Restraints on the Scope of a Convention:
“Assembly of State Legislatures” is a group of legislators planning the Article V Convention. About fifty state legislators met December 9, 2014 in Washington DC. Notes from this meeting show that lawmakers tabled a motion to restrict the scope of the Convention to only the subject matter of the state applications, and also rejected a motion which would have prevented congressmen and senators, federal judges and governors from serving as delegates to the Convention. This is an early indication that politicians want to have a more open process and may want to appoint members of Congress, the US Senate and federal judges to amend the Constitution.”
http://secure.campaigner.com/Campaigner/Public/t.show?7vx59–3x1gz-i06dam8&_v=2
until the people that do not vote in this country start to, the politicians running this country only speak for a part of it and should not change a thing.
.
UNLESS NO ONE CARES WHAT THEY DO–then real THEIR rewards, whatever they are and for whom
My comment just below links you to brief evidence that clinches the case against a COS.
I wish to add that even though the above puts a fatal bullet through the heart of the COS argument, the supporters of a COS are so resistant to facts and logic that it can’t hurt to take the brief time necessary to put another bullet in the brains of the argument and then decapitate the argument too, just for good measure. From experience, I am sure this will not deter many of the COS leaders who count on their supporters to follow them like religious zombies, with some degree of justification. But it may help to show some who currently favor a COS how utterly wrong untrustworthy are the people whom they’ve so generously trusted.
1. Fatal bullet to COS’s heart:
See the article linked in my comment just below.
2. Fatal bullet to COS’s brain, necessarily if high accuracy to hit such a small target:
The simple and direct language of Article V says VERY CLEARLY that the only power the states have is to require CONGRESS to call a convention. The meaning of “to call” is NOT the same as “to call for.” What it does mean is that the convention ball is entirely in Congress’s court with NO interference from the states whatsoever (unless Congress decides to permit some, at Congress’s own pleasure). This transfer of TOTAL AND EXCLUSIVE control over the convention in Congress’s hands occurs the moment the 34th state’s application for an Article V convention is filed with Congress. Read the language of Article V (which is, BTW, just ONE single, very long sentence). It says that when 2/3 of the states have filed such applications, CONGRESS “shall call” a convention. So . . . the fact that while congress MAY well CHOOSE to give the states some influence over the convention, the states have ZERO grounds for expecting that it will. Especially a corrupt congress which the states are attempting to curb by means of Article V. In that case, why would a corrupt congress volunteer to yiled its own power to the very states which are trying to reduce its power?
3. Decapitation of COS for good measure:
The COS stance on point 2. above has been that Congress does NOT have control over the convention at the point mentioned in 2. just above, despite the simple language of Article V that says it does. The reason congress has that power is because via Article V, calling the convention has become part of Congress’s obligation under the constitution, and the “necessary and proper” clause gives Congress the power to pass any laws necessary and proper to fulfill a constitutionally authorized or mandated function. The COS argument has been that the “necessary and proper” clause of the Cosntitution DOESN’T APPLY in the case of Article V, because under Article V the congress is … HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS … NOT PERFORMING A FEDERAL FUNCTION(!!!!!).
(Are you beginning to understand why I call the COS position a “fictional narrative?” The whole thing is based on stretching things orders of magnitude further into fantasy land than the most fantastic of events occurring in the Alice in Wonderland tale.)
The COS argument is that case law supports this outlandish claim, and when pressed to name the case law, a 1922 Supreme Court decision in a case involving Article V is cited (see the article linked in my comment just below this one). However, as the article linked in my comment below shows, THAT IS A BALD FACED LIE Not only does that case FAIL to confirm the COS claim that congress is not performing a federal function — but what it actually says is THAT UNDER ARTICLE V, NOT ONLY IS CONGRESS STILL PERFORMING A NORMAL FEDERAL FUNCTION AS ANY SANE, NON-COS LEADER CAN SEE, BUT FURTHER, THE STATES TOO ARE ALSO PERFORMING A FEDERAL FUNCTION.
IE, after making a totally absurd interpretation of the simple language of Article V which no one has ever before dared to make in all US history, the COS position justifies it when pressed, by asseting something just as preposterous — that Congress is NOT performing a federal function when acting under Article V even though Congress is a branch of the federal gov’t, and would be acting under an obligation forced upon it by THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION’s fifth article. When then still further asked to justify THAT ridiculous claim, the COS leadership says “case law proves this,” and when asked WHAT case law proves it, the COS leadership and top Constitutional “expert” mentions a specific 1922 Supreme Court case as the decision proclaiming that under Arrticle V, congress is not performing a federal function. But finally, all the twisting and lying and false assertions and spin have gone as far as the COS advocates can streatch them and their only remaining hope is that if the say all this with a confident smile and an air of triumph, no one will actually CHECK the source offered by the last lying arrow they have left in their sling of lies.
But . . . that case was checked, and the result proves how VERY CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT IT IS TO CHECK EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE, WORD, SYLLABLE, AND LETTER THESE BRAZEN COS LIARS UTTER:
The shocking fact is that contrary to the lying claim by the COS leadership that this Supreme Court decision says “Even though Congress is a branch of the Federal Gov’t, and even though acting under the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION in an Article V case, NEVERTHELESS the function Congress performs is NOT a federal one.” But this claim is NOT just a garden variety lie, it is a stupendously, outrageously BRAZEN lie, because what the Supreme Court decision actually says is the precise REVERSE, namely that “despite the fact that states do not normally perform federal functions, when acting under Article V of the constitution to compel Congress to call a convention, the states NEVERTHELESS ARE ACTUALLY PERFORMING A FEDERAL FUNCTION, as is congress.”
In short: To support their claim that under Article V the states will have control over the convention they can force Congress to call, the COS people are making up a fictional lie which they have manufactured out of whole cloth. When pressed, they are forced to come up with another lie to justify the alleged validity of the first one. When pressed to offer support for that second lie they offer a third lie to support the second lie — obviously hoping that third and last lie at the end of the line is one that will not actually be checked . . . because when we do check it we find out it is not merely a lie, but a WHOPPER of a lie. Basically, the lie is that the Supreme Court has said Congress is transformed into a body acting TOTALLY UNLIKE ITS NORMAL SELF, under the kind of rules that apply to states. But the truth is that this is not only false, not only that NO CHANGE IN CONGRESS’ FUNCTION occurs, but that in fact IT IS THE STATES ARE THE PARTY ACTING TOTALLY UNLIKE THEIR NORMAL SELVES, AND IT IS THEY ARE OPERATING UNDER RULES WHICH NORMALLY APPLY TO CONGRESS!!!!!!!
In closing, let me quote again your own quote from Churchill with a short addendum of my own:
Churchill: “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
Morry: “Eventually, a lying serial liar like COS guru Natelson will find that the truth has set his . pants on fire.”
Rita,
Please comment on this extremely short article which thoroughly disproves Rob Natelson’s claim that the states have any control whatsoever over an Article V convention:
http://www.guardtheconstitution.com/2015/01/22/convention-of-states-rob-natelson-counts-on-the-people-not-checking-his-citations-ooops/113
Why should we change it?
How about we use it?
I will fight for the rights I was born with. …
Period.
Rita and all,
As an obvious expert, you have laid out a compelling case, showing the other side’s fallacious understanding of an Article V convention, where states exert their authority to limit the Federal Government. Republicans, united under the banner of Reagan, should desire more limits on government, to ensure liberty is secured for the next generation, to ensure it is secure for THIS generation.
Today, the left is eroding liberty, advancing erotic liberty over religious liberty, forcing business owners by threat of imprisonment to serve despite their sincerely held religious beliefs. Even some conservatives believe we are one election away from turning the tide. Bush and Reagan taught us that one, even two or three elections will not turn the tide. Winning has proven insufficient, unable to stop the secularization of America; incapable of stopping the growth of government; useless in securing our liberties again.
Article V is a radical proposal because of a radical expansion of government threatening our liberties. The other options have been tried and found lacking, leaving a limited number of options that remain. An Article V convention may not be the solution, but there appears to be no other actionable solution remaining.
Thanks for your post and offering your expertise on this topic.
Seriously?
It’s a little late to come in and praise the author for her work when, 100 comments later, her article has been shredded to pieces by about a dozen or so people, don’t you think?
Loudoun,
How has it been discredited? What option have you proposed that has a viable path to success?
(Posted for the fifth time in this thread) Educate the public, find good people, and elect them to office.
You should really go through the entire discussion first. Most of the arguments you are probably going to make have already been asked and aswered.
Loudoun,
Please explain to me how, in the last 100 years, your idea worked to limit government and increase freedom in the federal government. As I explained in my above statement, the lessons learned from Bush and Reagan is that winning one, even two or three elections have not turned the tide of limiting freedom and expanding government.
I read most of the comments above, my face turning red with embarrassment, seeing logical fallacies embraced with greater vigor as doomsdayers presented worst case, irrational, scenarios, heralding strawmen arguments designed to pit their limited arm-chair knowledge against an accomplished law scholar, playing the skeptic without advancing another cogent and tested idea, demonstrating the reason the Internet is often ridiculed; my head is still throbbing from the experience.
Are you one of them? The kind of person who logs onto these blogs just to tell us lowly folks how ignorant we are and that we give the internet a bad name?
Please point out the “logical fallacies” you see, along with the “irrational scenarios”, and explain why they could not happen. Then explain why you and your “accomplished law scholar” can’t answer these very simple questions:
Can you show me the law that gives the power to limit the scope of an Article V convention?
Can you show me the law that states an Article V convention would be a “convention of states”?
Can you show me the law that says delegates to the convention would be beholden to any state, party, organization, or any outside force?
Don’t bother with citing historical precedent. Precedent is not legally binding.
We “doomsdayers” with our “limited arm-chair knowledge” have been waiting a long time for the answers to those questions. You might have to climb down from your high horse to look for them, though.
Loudoun,
The Internet, with all her illustrious armchair academics, is the pre-eminent place for folk scholarship, a tradition still alive and well, a tradition celebrated daily. I, though, acknowledge I am not a Constitutional law scholar, a commitment requiring years of study, study that would challenge even the best minds on this board.
Rita is a Constitutional Law Scholar, a Bar appointed lawyer in the great state of Virginia who graduated Cum Laude from the esteemed Washington and Lee School of Law. I am challenging those who believe their armchair scholarship is to the level of Rita’s.
There are many logical fallacies presented by the other side: strawmen arguments of doomsday scenarios, loaded questions fallacies designed to paint the improbable as justification for rejecting the idea, appeal to fear fallacy designed to heighten the fear motivation, and more.
There are three options I have seen presented to help rectify the continued problem we face: Rita’s proposal, continue the status quo of elect and hope, or Jefferson’s idea of dividing government further, an idea rarely debated, an idea requiring the use of Rita’s method for success.
Elect and hope has proven ineffective, resulting in over 100 years of cultural deterioration, where freedom has been limited more and more, freedom like religious liberty, privacy, and freedom of association. A new solution is needed, a solution with historic precedent and scholarship.
“There are many logical fallacies presented by the other side”
I just asked you to name them and explain why they could not happen, and you dodged the question. How about you just list what you consider a logical fallacy and we can start from there?
I also asked you to answer three very simple questions and you and Rita both refuse to do so. I would think a Constitutional Law Scholar would be able to produde and cite the laws which back up her claims.
” I am challenging those who believe their armchair scholarship is to the level of Rita’s.”
So you think you know enough about me to determine my knowledge and experience in legal and political matters, do you? There are a few reasons why I don’t post using my real name. First and formeost among them is that I prefer to let my words speak for themselves. I don’t want someone trying to either bolster what I say, or dismiss what I say, based on who I am, my education, or my experience. If my arguments have merit, people can see that. If they don’t, people will ignore what I wrote.
What I see you and Rita doing is trying to hide poor arguments that are not backed up by the facts behind her resume. “Trust me. I’m a CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR,” she says. To that I say, “so what?” If you have the facts to back up your side, bring them out. Let’s see them. Otherwise, stop wasting our time.
Loudon,
It is impossible to prove a negative. However, if you are correct about this process being utterly corrupted because large sums of money will ruin the convention, then you must assume the current political process is a lost cause too. Arguing against the Article V for fear of the militant left but for the current political process is an awkward position, a position with no teeth, a position where you undermine your own argument.
There were many questions you posed, some were questions with the wrong presuppositions, some Rita addressed but you didn’t like her answer, some are merely attempting to disagree. In a debate, there must be a pro and a con side, merely taking the side, “your answer is not good enough” is not a logical debate position. Rather, it is a fallacious argument.
The most concerning part of your questions is the assumption that precedent and history does not construct the framework of our understanding of law. Prior decisions and history are essential, this is the nature of common law systems, this is the nature of all our laws, where laws in root form is clarified through history and precedent, gaining clarity and insight, building upon case after case, guiding future generations. You will not be satisfied with Rita’s answer because you reject the foundation of Common Law, of American jurisprudence, demanding a sort of fundamentalistic interpretation of the law, an interpretation rooted in the twisted Baconian interpretive philosophy popular by the radical left and the libertarians, a view that undermines our law system and not upholds it. The libertarians embrace a libertine interpretation of the laws, a position our founders avoided. The liberals embrace the need to reinterpret the laws due to Baconianism, also not in view by our founders.
Parts of Baconianism is good, but not in legal jurisprudence or Biblical Theology.
The questions are fallacious because the presuppositions by which you bring to the table will discount the normal evidence presented. In other words, the chasm is even bigger than you realize. We are not even able to agree on the core of common law principles to derive an answer.
This is the second time I have asked you to provide any legal foundation for the claims Rita has made and the second time you have dodged the question. You have to have a legal foundation to say that you can limit the scope of an Article V convention. Otherwise you are just spouting an opinion.
If someone breaks into my house and tries to kill me, there is a law that makes that a crime, so after I pound the idiot to submission, I can point to a legal statute to say, “you cannot do that,” and the police will come and take that person to jail.
If I put my money in a bank, and then later try to withdraw it, and the bank won’t give it to me, I can point to a law that says, “you can’t do that.”
In Virginia, if I walk into a restaurant with a gun on my hip, and they try to prevent me from coming in, I can point to a law that says, “I can do that, and you can’t stop me from coming in.”
Where is the law that says you can limit the scope of an Article V convention?
Where is the law that says an Article V convention is a convention of states?
You can talk legal and historical precedence until you are blue in the face, but precedent IS NOT BINDING. You can have 100 Supreme Court decisions in favor of allowing a woman to have an abortion, but it will not stop a future Supreme Court from ruling that there is no Constitutional right for an abortion. Previous legal precedent gets reversed all the time. New rulings supersede previous rulings. New laws wipe away old laws.
If you want to make the claims that you and Rita and the other Article V convention supporters have made about how a convention would run, who would attend, and how you would limit the scope, then SHOW ME THE LAW
OR LEGAL FOUNDATION THAT BACKS YOU UP.
“However, if you are correct about this process being utterly corrupted because large sums of money will ruin the convention, then you must assume the current political process is a lost cause too.”
I never said the process was corrupt. I have said there are corrupt people in politics and government. You don’t deny that do you? The process does not need to be corrupt for moderates and liberals to turn an Article V convention into a nightmare.
Enough liberals and moderates in Congress can vote to create an Article V convention that either excludes the states, or gives the states proportional representation. That’s not corrupt.
Five Supreme Court justices could vote to uphold Congress by pointing out that there is nothing in Article V that requires the states be involved in the actual convention other than petitioning for it, and ratifying its product. Or they could point to the presidential nominating conventions as justification for proportional representation of the states. Still not corrupt.
In the states, moderate and liberal politicians could elect a slate of Democrats and squishy moderate Republicans to be delegates to a convention with proportional representation. Still nothing corrupt happening.
When the convention is convened and called to order. The delegates can vote to adopt any set of rules they want, giving themselves unlimited scope to propose any amendment they want, up to and including producing a whole new document. Haven’t seen any corruption take place yet, have you?
The convention delegates can then move to strip out our right to keep and bear arms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right not to testify against ourselves. They can change the qualifications for office for Congress and the President, stripping away requirements that they be US Citizens. They can invest near total power into a President, turning the position into a de-facto king if they want. They can then set no time limit for ratification of these new amendments. Still haven’t seen anything corrupt. They are all still following the rules.
Then there would be a battle that would go on forever. States ratifying the amendments, other states voting against ratification. Legislatures changing party control and voting to ratify the amendments while others states try to rescind previous votes of ratification. Still nothing corrupt about the process.
You see, the fatal flaw in your plan is not just the process. It’s the PEOPLE involved in the process. Do you think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will suddenly morph into James Madison and John Adams if they are faced with an Article V convention? Will John Boehner transform into George Washington and help usher in a new age of limited government? Will a liberal Democrat who has spent their entire life living off the trough of government largesse and grown up learning in school that the founders of this country were evil, white, slave owners, become a delegate to an Article V convention, and suddenly find a wellspring of civic pride, and vote to limit the size and scope of government?
For your plan to work, you need to educate the people as to the true nature and history of our country. You need to educate people about conservatism and why it is the better for them than liberalism. You need to educate people about the destructive nature of dependence on the government and how it destroys freedom. Then you need to find good people who you can elect to office who will respect your version of historical precedent and would follow the precedent you would want them to follow. Then you elect good people to the state governments who will send real conservatives to a convention, who could be trusted to limit the scope of what they consider.
Hmmm…Educate the public. Find good people and elect them to office. It seems like the answer to your problem is to do exactly what I have proposed as a solution to our Country’s problem. The irony is that if we follow through on what I have proposed, we won’t NEED an Article V convention. We will have already fixed the problem.
Have a nice day.
Why am I only allowed to upvote your comment once? It deserves several hundred. Thank you.
Loudoun,
Your question was not directly answered, but it was addressed. As I noted in my previous post, you deny the basic understanding of Common Law and American Jurisprudence, allowing you to set your own criteria of the nature of evidence, only accepting the most narrow view of evidence in a legal environment, advancing the legal philosophy of Baconianism. Philosophers will agree, until there is an agreement on the basic presuppositions, on the nature of evidence, it is impossible to proceed. I believe Rita’s view of acceptable American Jurisprudence evidence is historically within American Jurisprudence, but you wish to discount it with no rational legal basis for your opinion only the failed Baconian approach.
Then, Seeming to want to switch the tables when I showed how your attacks on my position took the teeth out of your own position, you try to do the same to me, but you show your own misunderstanding of the concept being advanced, demonstrating the problems with your own side, never fully realizing the implications of Rita’s position.
First, my view is different than Rita’s. I believe in Jefferson’s divided government theory that Virginia embraced early in our country’s founding. Only talked about, that I know of, in academic settings, this view is appealing as it accomplishes most of what I believe should occur in government.
Sorry for the side topic. Now onto why your attack fails.
Your view of elect and hope, which has failed for the last 100 years in curbing the tide of big government, requires the education of millions of people from all walks of life. It, obviously, has not worked and would take generations to achieve, if successful. Your strategy, which is no strategy at all, ultimately believes Federal Elections will impact the Federal Government so to solve the Federal problem. In other words, you expect the Federal Government to solve a Federal overreach. I do not think the Federal government is the solution to our problem.
Rita’s group is not proposing something on this mass of a scale. Their strategy centers upon state legislatures, who are more conservative than their federal counterparts, often expressing frustration to federal regulations, regulations that handcuff their own ability to legislate. At the core, Rita and her friends believe the state legislatures are the solution to the Federal problem. So far, Jefferson’s proposal aligns with Rita’s view. Unlike the Jefferson proposal, neither view your view nor Rita’s addresses the infrastructure problems, a grave mistake.
Elect and hope is as much of a proposal no more than “Hope and Change” was in 2008. As noted before, we can win 1, 2, or even 3 elections and still advance the big government solution. By the time generations have passed to have educated our citizenry well, the cancer may have destroyed the Republic. As well, there is no plan for educating people well and no plan for developing candidates that can win, remain faithful to the core principles, and can be excellent legislatures.
In other words, all you have is a slogan, a slogan with no teeth, a slogan with no plan, a slogan that merely wishes that enough commercials, talk radio personalities and rallies will change people. You have no education agenda; Rita’s side does. You have no plan to move minds; Rita’s side does. You have no plan on how to achieve your goals; Rita’s side does. They have a local plan, a micro-plan, and a macro plan. You have a slogan.
Derrick,
Could you please start providing me with ANY legal foundation to back up what you say?
I would have thought that after two days and nearly 200 comments that if ANYONE supporting an Article V convention had ANY legal foundation to support ANY of their claims, that SOMEONE would have produced them by now.
As it is, you just ignore my questions (for the third time now) any move into (again) a philosophical discussion, which would be nice at a dinner party if we weren’t considering the possible destruction of our Country.
Let me tell you something that you can take to the bank. Five votes beats your philosophy. Five centrist to liberal Supreme Court justices can take every philosophical argument, every historical precedent, every federalist paper you point to, AND IGNORE THEM. Why??? Because PRECEDENT IS NOT BINDING LAW. Legal precedents can and do get reversed.
Historical precedents are used to provide an arugment to the court about why they should rule a certain way, but it is not binding. Legal precedent is useful to show how other courts have ruled, but it is not binding. Ultimately it boils down to the PEOPLE who wear those black robes.
I am truly shocked at your feelings towards elections. Do you vote? Let me break down your arguments against voting:
“Your view of elect and hope, which has failed for the last 100 years in curbing the tide of big government, requires the education of millions of people from all walks of life.”
What a horrible idea. Educating people so they are knowledgeable about the issues and can think (and take care) of themselves without the need for government.
“It, obviously, has not worked and would take generations to achieve, if successful.”
What do you think liberals have been doing for generations?? Do you think it is any accident that kids graduate from schools not able to read? Do you think it is an accident that our schools are teaching a warped view of American history to the public? No matter what happens with this issue, we HAVE to take back control of our schools and do a better job of educating our kids.
“Your strategy, which is no strategy at all, ultimately believes Federal Elections will impact the Federal Government so to solve the Federal problem.”
Gasp! Why, I am shocked! Shocked!!! at the very idea that electing honorable men and women to federal office would somehow impact the Federal Government!! (sarcasm alert!!!)
“In other words, you expect the Federal Government to solve a Federal overreach.”
Yes. I expect us to use the direct, immediate tool the Founders Fathers gave us to solve the problem. When you have bad people in office, throw them out and replace them with good ones.
Rita and her colleagues do indeed have a plan, but it is a plan based on a false premise, and faulty reasoning. It makes way too many assumptions, and you do know what happens when you assume, don’t you?
Still waiting for that legal foundation.
And for all of those prestigious qualifications, she is still flat out wrong.
http://coolidgeproject.us/the-opposition-the-arguments/
http://coolidgeproject.us/the-opposition-the-arguments/
Bingo! They only propose to do what has already been tried. They are failing but too afraid to admit same. I wonder – are they liberal republicans who have no real desire to return to a constitutional government?
If that is what you have gathered from this thread, and from those of us who oppose this CoS lunacy, then you are beyond help.
P.S. – there is a link right below this comment, if you actually had any interest in exploring this subject with a modicum of intellectual curiosity or honesty.
You make an amazing comment coming from a group of opposers who see subterfuge, hidden agendas, and malicious intent at every turn. LOL!
PS – your side never addresses the first part of my comment.
Once again, all of her arguments have been shredded in this thread, and here, should you choose to click and inform yourself, Derick.
http://coolidgeproject.us/the-opposition-the-arguments/
How many falsehoods can they tell before they lose all credibility? Here is “three strikes, you are out”:
They claim it is not a constitutional convention. Go read the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary. It is a constitutional convention.
They say the convention of 1787 did not exceed its authority, so we have no reason to fear that a convention today would either. Read Federalist #40, where James Madison explains why they DID EXCEED THEIR AUTHORITY.
They say the states will control the convention & Congress will do nothing but say it is time for a convention. Go read the Congressional Research Service report (#R42589, p.18). It says Congress has historically “asserted broad and substantive authority over the full range of the Article V Convention … from start to finish.”
Don’t be so desperate to do SOMETHING, that you fall for these false promises.
Would you be so kind as to identify whom you are referring to when you write “they”?
Go ahead, say it? Please?
Context isn’t enough?
Even without that, who has made the false claims I have listed?
“They” refers to Convention of States, and most other individuals and groups who are advocating the calling of a convention.
Which political party is behind this attempt at a Con-Con?
Individuals from both major parties support it, and individuals from both parties oppose it.
Some smaller, third parties, such as the Constitution Party, are united in opposing it.
Mark Meckler co-hosted the 2011 Harvard Con Con Con event with liberal Prof. Lawrence Lessig. The event was a bipartisan effort between the right and the left working to bring an article 5 convention to fruition. There were notable liberals there including Cenk Uygur, a popular progressive left-wing Turkish political commentator on the web and TV program “The Young Turks” (on Current TV, a cable Channel formally owned by Al Gore that recently bought over by Arab network Al Jazeera). Uygur created the Wolf-PAC, you know the leftist group lobbying for an article 5 convention. Wolf_PAC’s executive director attended the second Assembly of State Legislatures (a bipartisan group of state legislators with a democrat co-chair working to bring Art V to fruition) meeting in support of them and lobbying and support for COS.
I don’t know that all of this specifically addresses which “political party” is behind this attempted at a con con but it’s relevant. Art V convention applications are receiving bipartisan support.
Thanks for the reply.
I think it is safe to assume that the Democrats and Republicans cannot even agree on what day of the week it is?
How would they ever agree on changes in the
Constitution?
Why would either Party want to change the Constitution, unless they had the upper hand to control the content of change?
Is’t it true that with a con-con, the majority party will ultimately have the upper hand?
No one will have the upper hand. The left and progressives will continue to be involved every step of the way. Art V convention advocate Nick Dranius assured at the Harvard Con Con Con that only consensus-based ideas would get through. How does the right and the left come to a consensus? They compromise.
In the Virginia GA, all the patrons in the House are Republican. (HJ 497) In the Senate, looks like the chief and only patron is Republican. (SJ 269) Source is the LIS.
Isn’t this nothing more than an attempt to change the U.S. Constitution by the Republican Party while they apparently have 3/4 of the states, and a majority in the U.S. House and Senate?
Republican does not mean conservative. That is after all why the tea party sprang up; to rein in the GOP.
According to the link below, where you were the organizer of a Farris appearance to promote COS, you used an email address @selfgovern.com, Leo Linbeck III’s parent organization behind COS. Shouldn’t people be aware that you actively work with them to this degree? And that you are on their staff as counsel for COS? That is not in your bio above.
http://www.hslda.org/elert/archive/elertarchive.aspx?7243
Part 1 of 5
Rita,
As with every other issue here, you are dead wrong about
the Sept 15 meeting of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The “COS”
leadership has spun the facts out of context. It’s sickening to see
well meaning folks like you, day after day, spouting the same lies with
full moral confidence in your rectitude. You have to know the full
context. The bottom line of what actually happened on Sept 15, 1787 is
that George Mason presented his desire for EXACTLY YOUR TOTALLY
ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT ARTICLE V SAYS, on a voice vote,
asking how many would allow the states to control the amendment process
without congressional oversight and control, and EVERY SINGLE DELEGATE
EXCEPT MASON AND HIS TWO FRIENDS VOTED AGAINST IT.
You are so incredibly blind and uninformed it’s shocking. I’ll bet you did not
learn the things you’re spouting now in school, but rather from the
“experts” like Rob Natelson, et al, who have ulterior motives for
wanting to have a convention. They WANT to destroy the Constitution and
our Constitutional
Republic, and YOU ARE
HELPING THEM. I will NOT
say “God help you!! and Forgive you, for you know not what you do.”
— I will NOT say that because you present yourself as somewhat of an
expert on this topic, and you have an ethical obligation to get your
facts straight. They are on history’s record for all to see. And you
have obviously not investigated or done your research. You have
chosen the easy way and the lazy way, to trust the story of a couple of
people whose bona fides you have also obviously swallowed whole from a
few others on his side, and have made no effort to REALLY thorouhly
investigate the facts. It’s pathetic and tragic.
Frankly, you are parroting a fictional narrative almost verbatim which
I”ve read
200 times at least, ALL REFERRING TO THE SAME NON-FACTS AS THEY’VE
BEEN SPUN BUT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE “COS” MOVEMENT.
The reason I’m so confident that you did NOT learn this in school, is because
the
tale you are telling never existed until a very few years ago when it
was manufactured out of whole cloth by the hard left who have
unfortunately been able to convince many gullible, lazy conservatives
like yourself. Have you read Madison’s
notes on the convention?
Here’s what really happened, with the background of the INTENT of
Article V, the background of the WORDING of ARticle V, and the facts of
what happened on Sept 15, 1787.
1. First of all, you have a HUGE BLIND SPOT. Actually, more than one. When the
Framers were writing the Constitution, they did not expect the nation to be
populated
by criminals and crooks, nor that the people would elect same, at least
not right away. The mood of the nation was generaly EXTREMELY pro
liberty and independence. In fact our nation did MIRACULOUSLY well
in its early years, despite many problems as the Constitution was
generally observed, and those elected to public office were generally
very honorable men. YOU are assuming that the delegates to the 1787
Convention viewed congress the way you do today, and THAT IS WHAT THOSE
WHOSE PROPAGANDA YOU’VE SWALLOWED WANT YOU TO BELIEVE — THEY ARE CAPITALIZING
ON YOUR HATRED OF TODAY’S SITUATION — WHICH IS JUSTIFIED OF COURSE — TO WARP
YOUR VIEW OF THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE 1787 CONVENTION OCCURRED. Read the comments
of virtually ALL the framers and founders at the time, on the issue of Congress
vs. State control.
ALMOST TO A MAN, they trusted Congress over the state legislatures, and
for good reasons. They were thinking about a Constitutional Republic
being PROPERLY run, and when done right, it is far more likely that a
“fad” or “mass emotional” step would find a foothold
amongst state
legislatures than that it would do so amongst the leaders the people had
elected NOT for just local matters, but as their very few
representatives to be sent to DC. They are a more select body. READ
YOUR HISTORY AND TRY TO FIND AN EXCEPTION TO THIS VIRTUALLY UNANIMOUS OPINION
OF THE FOUNDERS AND FRAMERS. There were only a few who disagreed on SPECIFIC
issues — such as Mason, Reynolds, and Gerry at
the 1787 convention, the ONLY dissenters from this view, as were many of
the anti-Federalists, who were a small minority too. Basically all
the Framers were “anti” federalist in a way, just not quite as
“anti” as
the group called the “anti-Federalists.”
2. Yes, the
framers did want to protect us from a corrupt Congress. But they
created NUMEROUS means for so doing, and to the last man, almost, THEY
NEVER WANTED TO USE AMENDMENTS FOR THAT PURPOSE. There were far
better, and still are far better means of stopping a corruipt congress.
YOU FIND THEM. I can’t spoon feed you everything you’re ignorant
about, because there’s so darned much of it. Amendments are to
correct errors and omissions. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
fathers of our Declaration and our Constitution, both have said more
than once that amendments are not effective means for restraining a
corrupt government. Find amendments amongst the existing 27 which
are. YEs the entire constitution can be regarded as a means for
contraining and restraining the federal gov’t, but I mean NOT things
like the bill of rights, but PROCEDURAL sections which establish
procedures in such a way as to be concerned with checks and balanced to
prevent corruption and the concentration of power. Things like having
2 houses of Congress, things like how to impeach, things like how to
count the votes of the electoral college, things like the Presidential
veto power over Congress, and like the Supreme Court’s ability to judge
Congress’s laws unconstitutional, and Congress’s ability to impeach
federal judges. These are in the body of the constitution.
THE
PEOPLE have the power to prevent a corrupt congress by not voting to
re-elect men who violate their oath of office. That’s ONE method of
MANY I’ll “reveal” to you because judging by your discussions here,
it
would not even surprise me if you were unaware of that.
It’s WE
THE PEOPLE who have ourselves to blame for joining with the states who
themselves in turn joined with the fed gov in a demand for benefits from
the fed gov instead of a gov’t whose purpose is solely to protect our
ilberty and rights.
The amendment process was NEVER INTENDED to
be a tool for restraining or preventing corrupt gov’t because OBVIOUSLY a
congress which disregarded the Constitution would also disregard any
amendments to it which they didn’t wish to obey, too. THIS IS WHAT
PEOPLE HERE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU, BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THE FOUNDERS THEMSELVES
HAVE SAID. IT’S ONLY IN THE PAST FEW YEARS THAT THE BOY GENIUSES WHO ARE GIVING
THE LATEST PUSH TO THE ARTICLE V CONVENTION MOVEMENT HAVE DISCOVERED THAT
EVERYONE, EVEN THOSE ALIVE AT THE TIME,HAS GOTTEN HISTORY WRONG FOR OVER 200
YEARS, and they (esp Natelson) have
just had an epiphany and are the only ones who know the new truth about
our history. Well, it’s worse than that. They then go back and not
only spin the words of the framers into their opposite meaning, but
actually lie outright, and if you REALLY want your ears burned, ask me
to elaborate on the outright lies your sources have filled your ears
with.
3. That’s the context within which the 1787 convention
took place. Now for the context within the context, ie for what
happened at the convention prior to Sept 15, 1787 and then on Sept 15,
so you can understand the meaning of waht really happened. Here goes:
4.
Article V had been written long before Sept 15, but there was
unsettled debate and it had been temporarily shelved for later
re-consideration, which happened in September. The original terms of
Article V were ONLY ONE METHOD FOR ADDING AMENDMENTS, and that was the
one which so far is the ONLY ONE EVER TO BE USED. That is the method
whereby 2/3 or more of BOTH houses of congress decide to propose an
amendment to the constitution, and if that many agree they should be
proposed, then they go to the states for ratification (either by each
state’s legislature OR by a convention to be called by each state within
itself for this purpose, whichever method CONGRESS chooses), and if 3/4
of the states approve the proposed amendments, then they are adopted.
THAT WAS WHERE MATTERS STOOD, ON THE SHELF, FOR SOME TIME. The reason
was that a FEW, namely three in particular, of the delegates wanted a
means for the STATES to initiate amendments. Mason, Gerry, and
Reynolds were basically very anti-federalists, and were of the opinion
that the states should have another means for participationg in amending
the constitution, rather than leave it up to Congress alone to come up
with amendments, and the states play a passive or “RE-active” role
only,
namely that of saying “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” on the
amendment
which Congress had proposed.
5. Basically, three men, Mason,
Reynolds, and Gerry TOOK THE VIEW WHICH THE “COS” LEADERSHIP NOW
ADVOCATES, AND THEY WERE, i’LL SHOW YOU, SHOT DOWN UNANIMOUSLY BY THE OTHER
DELEGATES. SO TO GIVE YOU A PREVIEW OF THE FINAL UPSHOT, WHICH I’M ABOUT TO
PROVE TO YOU BELOW, THE CURRENT MOVEMENT FOR AN ARTICLE V CONVENTIN IS ACTUALLY
A TOTALLY DESPICABLE AND INSIDIOUS ATTEMPT TO RESURRECT THE VIEWS OF THOSE
THREE DELEGATES, AND CLAIM THAT IT WAS THE
VIEW OF THE 1787 CONVENTION, WHEN IN FACT THE EXACT AND PRECISE REVERSE IS
TRUE. THE CONVENTION UNANIMOUSLY SHOT IT DOWN. As you’ll soon see, they shot it
down by voting for the inclusion of a 2nd option for
creating amendments, the one that’s in Article V, and THEY ALL OF THEM,
INCLUDING MASON AND HIS PALS, UNDERSTOOD THAT IT DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY IT
DOES, NOR WHAT THE “COS” LEADERS SAY IT DOES (which you are parroting
along with their entire twisted and spun and false arguments on that view,
which they fabricated in order to “prove” their false
point).
Rita, you are so, so wrong it is truly pathetic and
frightening. It’s obvious from the simple language of Art V, which
is part of a document whose entire language is intended to be simple and
to mean what it says so that even a dummy can understand it, and you
are erecting PRECISELY the IDENTICAL and totally false rationalizations
which the “COS” leadership had to invent sequentially over time as
people pointed out to the victims of the “COS” leadership’s
contradictions with Art V itself and with historical facts. One after
the other over time t hey’ve had to manufacture rationalization after
rationalization because their position is DEAD WRONG and TOTALLY FALSE,
and has kept generating contradictions with fact as well as with
historical statements and quotes, and so thus a more complex FICTIONAL
narrative was developed by the COS leadership which is very
SELF-consistent now, but still contradicts history’s known facts as well
as the common english meaning of the words of Article V. YOU Rita,
are amongst the many sheep who have drunk from the trough of the COS
leadership’s kool-aid.
Part 2 of 5
6. By Sept 15, the entire Constitution in
its final content was nearly complete. Just a TINY bit more needed to
be deliberated, then the whole kit and caboodle would be re-formatted
and put into a nice, logical order, with good grammar and spelling, and
cleaned up with its puntcutation and so forth, into a presentable final
document to be signed two days later.
One of the outstanding
details needing to be nailed down was Article V. Now, rememnber, the
fact is that only 3 men from amongst all the delegates held the view
that YOU claim the convention did, namely that amendments are intended
to be a tool against fed gov corruption and that they ‘d be an effective
weapon against same. And those three had expressed a desire for a
second means of amending to be included in Article V in which the states
did NOT play such a passive role, but were able to do the deed
themselves. Well . . .
The very reason we have a Constitution
is to prevent “mob rule.” Change must be allowed for, but the rules
of the law should be such that ;they enforce some wisdom and prudence,
and that they PREVENT “mob psychology” from “acting in
haste” and then
having to repent later. The delegates were ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY opposed
to letting state legislatures decide to amend the constitution without a
check on their ability to do so by Congress. ONLY 3 MEN wanted them to
have this power..
But Mason, Reynolds, and Gerry were
intelligent men who had played important roles in other of the
convention’s deliberations, and they were VERY strong in their desire
for such an alternative method of amending. So . . . someone (I forget
who, if I ever did know who) came up with a COMPROMISE. And that is
what you see in Article V today. That compromise was to allow the
states to INITIATE the process, BUT BY NO MEANS TO GIVE THEM CONTROL
OVER IT, as the COS people have brainwashed thousands, including you
Rita, into believing. I will provide more on this now, but just want
to say here that I hope you will open your mind and verify what I”m
telling you here for yourself. Go read Madison’s
notes on the
convention which he wrote in real time to create a history of its
deliberations for posterity (the 1787 convention was held behind closed
doors!!). Read the Federalist. Read Jefferson’s and Hamilton’s and
Madison’s views on this topic and DO NOT GET YOUR INFO FROM TEH SAME
SOURCES WHO’VE GIVEN YOU ALL THE LIES YOU ALREADY HAVE SWALLOWED. Go
to those who are opposing a convention, see their websites blogsites and
facebook pages, and listen to their arguments and the references they
cite, and then study them with an open mind, and discover how thoroughly
and how shrewdly you have been led down the garden path. Rita, if we
have a convention, you are going to wake up one day, and realize what a
colossal error it was. You’ll say ‘WAIT A MINUTE, THEY CAN’T DO THAT!!”
But they can , and they will, and you will find out TOO LATE that
everything I’m telling you here, and that others have told you also
here, about your errors, is 100% correct, and YOU ARE NOT INFALLABLE,
RITA. But it’s obvious yo’ve been getting your info from one basic
source even if it comes from afew websites. The ENTIRE bunch of groups
who support a “COS” ALL cite Rob
Natelson as the ultimate “expert” on
whose opinion they rely. And Natelson is on the political left, he’s a
liberal, he denies it now at times, but his record and all his personal
history and present activities as well confirm this beyond doubt, and
he has PROVABLY lied MANY TIMES to support the agenda by which has
convinced conservatives like you to become unwitting aids to his efforts
to get a convention going, so the left can do as much damage as
possible to our Constitution, and hopefully destroy it. YOU ARE HELPING
YOUR OWN ENEMIES, RITA. PLEASE DON’T DO IT. PLEASE DO SOME REAL
WORK AND RESEARCH THIS FOR YOURSELF AT THE ORIGINAL SOURCES INSTEAD OF
SWALLOWING THE ASSERTIONS OF SOME VERY SLICK CHARLATANS.
7. Continiuing:
OK,
so as a compromise with the 3 men who felt SO strongly the way YOU and
the COS MOVEMENT do, someone came up with a COMPROMISE which is the
language you see in Article V. INstead of having to wait for Congress
to propose amendments, THE STATES CAN NOW STEP IN AND GET THE BALL
ROLLING WITH WHAT THEY MIGHT WISH TO AMEND, AND BE PRO-ACTIVE AS WELL AS
THE ORIGINAL METHOD OF AMENDMENT IN WHICH THEY ARE RE-ACTIVE. This
is the SECOND option of Art. V, the convention option, under which if
2/3 of the states APPLY TO CONGRESS (ie, petitiion or request of
Congress) that it call a convention under Art V, then if/as/when 2/3 of
the states make such application to congress, then congress becomes
obliged to, and MUST call a convention. THIS GIVES THE STATES A MEANS
TO FORCE CONGRESS TO REACT!! AND THIS WAS AS FAR AS THE VAST MAJORITY
OF THE DELEGATES WERE WILLING TO GO TOWARD COMPROMISE WITH MASON AND HIS
PALS.
8. You now must realize that to “CALL” a convention is
NOT synonymous with calling FOR one. To “call” the convention means
to
create it. To set it up. To determine who its delegates will be or
how they are chosen EVERYONE AT THE CONVENTION KNEW THIS WITHOUT
QUESTION, AND YOUR MENTION OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME IS CORRECT,
BUT THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WAS COMMON WAS NOT WHAT YOU SAY IT WAS, IT WAS
SOMETING ELSE. Everyone knew what “call” a convention meant, and
that is why Mason and his pals (READ MADISON’S OWN NOTES THOROUGHLY)
considered this compromise — ie the CURRENT WORDING OF ARTICLE V — to
be an INSULT to themselves, They held the view that YOU have accepted
based on its advocacy by the charlatans leading the COS movement.
THEIR (false) description of the intent of Art V, is IDENTICAL TO WHAT
MASON DEMANDED, and what was REJECTED by the vast majority of the
delegates to the convention which created ARticle V and the
Constitution.
Mason did NOT get total control by the states.
Tha’ts because NONE of the others besides his two pals, WANTED THAT.
Your fearless COS leaders and shyster liars, keep saying that this was
the intent of Art V, or why else would they ask the states to get
involved? And why would the states get involved? Well why not, if
they really felt strongly about an amendment, why wouldn’t they? They
already CAN get involved under the single original provision in Article V
by which all amewndments bar none have been adoiped. Even a SINGLE
state or a single person for that matter, can get the ball rolling on an
amendment. A state can tell its delegation to the Congress to push for
a certain amendment, or YOU individually could suggest to your
congressman or senator(s) an amendment, and they will try to get it some
“publicity” amongst the Congress if their state legislature, or
governor, or a petition of voters askes them to do so, OR they MAY
decide to do so if YOU ask them all by your lonesome. If they think
it’s a good idea, and if they can convince 2/3 of Congress that it is,
then it will be proposed to all the states for ratification.
But
this was not enough for Mason and pals. They wanted NO say by
congress, in case congress was corrupt. So… we’ve already been
through the ENTIRE argument you and I are having here, back in 1787, and
your side lost, and now the charlatans of the left and their dupes on
the right are trying to re-write history so they can get a shot at
destroying our constitution.
Do you understand this, Rita?
Mason
wanted another amendment option that would enable the states on their
own, with ZERO input from Congress, to amend the constitution. They
FAILED TO GET IT, and now the new generation of boy geniuses are telling
us that’s exactly what they got. That’s a bald faced LIE.
Amendents were not intended for the purpose of fighting a corrupt congress. We
have elections, impeachment, nullification (Thomas Jefferson’s most
lauded means for fighting/preventing tyranny — he knew and stated that
amendments were senseless, exactly what we are trying to show you now —
that a corrupt congress OR admin OR judiciary OR anyone who
characteristically ignores the Constitution is NOT going to start
“getting religion” about the constitution just by YOU adding another
few
paragraphs to it. If that isn’t obvious to you, you need to go back to
logic 101 and study hard).
So . . none of the other
delegates were willing to give the states that power. They’d had a
convention (the one going on right then) of WISE AND KNOWLEDGEABLE AND
EXPERIENCED men to create their constitution, with very very thorough
reasoning over every word of it. State legislators have done things
like pass a law that Pi = 3 instead of 3.1415926535. . . etc. State
letislatures are NOT characteristically known for their statesmanly
virtues. They are mostly concerned with LOCAL state matters, NOT the
federal constitution. Congress on the other hand is ALWAYS dealing
with the constitution every time it passes a law, and therefore in a
postiion to spot errors or oversights in the constitution, just as
editor will spot errors in a book’s manuscript and correct or “amend”
the errors and oversights and publish a revised and corrected version of
the book. THAT’s what amendments are for, and if you read the notes of
the convention by Madison
you will see that explicitly. The framers
knew they were not omniscient nor infallible, and might well have
overlooked something, or commited a logical error, or made a different
error, which over time would be highlighted by events, and then Congress
would be THE NUMBER ONE body to see that error or omission and the
first to realize that it must be amended. To have the state
legislatures be able to make amendments all by themselves, even
unanimously, was just too much for the framers to allow. Here’s why:
Part 3 of 5
9.
Within the constitution, you have to make the rules for a PROPERLY
FUNCTIONING fed gov. You tell it hte proper rules. You build in checks
and balances to avoid accumulatin of power and to nip corruption in the
bud. You create processes like elections, impeachment, etc that will
further prevent corruption and power abuse. But you do not say “and
if you decide not to pay attentin to this, then we hereby authorize the
states to throw off this governmenment and change it, even for a new
one if they like”. That would be preposterous on its face, and
self-contradictory. By the Declaration, which SUPERSEDES THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS ONLY THE LAW,
AS IMPORTANT AS THE LAW IS. THE LAW IS NOT WHAT THE
NATION IS. THE NATION IS MUCH MORE. INDEED, THE LAW IS MERELY THE MEANS SET UP
TO ENSURE THAT OUR RIGHTS, WHICH THE LAW IS INTENDED TO SERVE AND PROTECT, WILL
BE RECOGNIZED. WE THE PEOPLE ALWAYS HAVE THE INHERENT INALIENABLE RIGHT TO
CHANGE OR ALTER OR EVEN ABOLISH OUR GOVERNMENT IF WE CHOOSE. WE DO NOT NEED THE
CONSTITUTION TO GRANT US
THAT POWER. WE HAVE IT ALREADY. IT’S PART OF OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS, RITA.
10. So … the COS leaders totally
distort the truth. When Mason and friends saw the “compromise” added
to Art V’s language they were FURIOUS and INCENSED at what they
considered an insult. They WANTED exactly what YOU claim IS what Art V
says: a method for amendment controlled by the states alone. BUT THIS
IS NOT WHAT THEY GOT, AND IN FACT IT WAS REFUSED TO THEM IN A UNANIMOUS
VOTE OF ALL THE DELEGATES OTHER THAN THEMSELVES.
Rita, go back
and get all the PRIOR BACKGROUND FACTS plus the FULL detail of what
happened on Sept 15, and you’ll see that what it was, was a UNANIMOUS
REJECTION BY THE OTHER DELEGATES, EVERY ONE, OF WHAT MASON WANTED —
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE “cos” leaders want. IE, the authors of
ARticle V did not “include” a convention in there to assure the
states
would have total control. NO. They TOOK CONTROL AWAY FROM THE STATES,
100% ON PURPOSE, the minute 2/3 of ’em filed an ARticle V application
with congress. When (with 50 states now) the 34th state files its
petition or request or application, AT THAT MOMENT THE STATES ACTUALLY
LOSE CONTROL, AS THE DELEGATES TO THE 1787 CONVENTION INTENDED.
Again,
this was a compromise to hopefully get Mason’s agreement. If you read
the earlier parts of Madison’s notes, you’ll see that Art V AS A WHOLE
was added only because someone suggested that they would probably have
some few errors in the Constitution they were making, and there ought to
be a way to make corrections if/as/when Congress notices some. THAT
WAS THE MILD PURPOSE OF AMENDMENTS, AND FOR GOOD REASON — BECAUSE THEY
ARE VIRTUALLY ZERO HELP IN CONTROLLING OR CONSTRAINING a federal gov’t
gone bad. They knew it. I know it. The framers know it. Everyone
knows it — except the new crop of boy geniuses from the “COS”
project,
all of whom know vastly more about such things than Jefferson, Madison,
Hamilton, Jay and many other could ever have possibly known. I mean,
these kids are GENIUSES. Some even went to college. Wow. Natelson
has demonstrated his very vast but POOR knowledge olf the Constitution
and of Constitutional Law with his blatantly invalid and often idiotic
interpretations of the Colnstitution which would be hilarious if so many
people were’nt taking him seriously.
The compromise of a convention option being added, gave CONGRESS the
right to call the convention. This means that if it wanted to, Congress
could even go so far as to appoint its own members as delegates.
Obviously NOT what Mason wanted. But the other delegates did not wish
to grant Mason’s request because THEY saw it as very dangerous (exactly
what WE are trying to tell you to, but you seem too stubborn to be
willing to think. You seem to be another successful example of
brainwashing by the boy genius COS leaders, Rita. PLEASE STOP
LISTENING
TO THEM FOR ONCE — YOU CAN ALWAYS GO RIGHT BACK TO THEM IF YOU CHOOSE
— BUT PLEASE BE OBJECTIVE AND GO TO THE OTHER SIDE TO LISTEN
OBJECTIVELY TO THEIR FULL ARGUMENT — LEARN IT, AND SEE IF IT DOESN’T
SHOW YOU EXACTLY WHERE THE TRUTH IS.
11. TO SUM UP
Mason wanted a 2nd option for amendments that gave
states complete control or near-complete control over another means for
amending the constitution. He and 2 others wanted this, and they were
respected by the other delegates, but ALL the others disagreed
EMPHATICALLY, VERY EMPHATICALLY with their wish for states to have
near-full control over an amendment process. So . .they compromised and
added the convention as a second option. This was considered by all
the other delegates to be a compromise between the two STRONG views:
the one shared by Mason, Reynolds, and Gerry, as opposed to one EQUALLY
STRONGLY HELD by every single one of the other delegates.
The reason it was considered a compromise was that
(a)
it did provide a means for states to “take the initiative” and force
Congress to act if there was some amendment(s) they desired, rather than
the passive and “re-active” role which the original and SOLE means
for
amendment gave to the states. This was a concession to Mason,
partially, in that it offered the states a means for taking the
initiative and getting an amendment process going on an amendment(s)
which THEY, the states wanted, and thus to be “pro active” in the
amendment procedure. And. . .
(b)
However,
Congress would still have the power to control the way the convention
was assembled — when, where, how the delegates were chosen, who held
the gavel, etc. This was a concession to the view held by ALL OTHER
DELEGATES at the convention who SAW AS VERY DANGEROUS for the reasons
above, to give the state legislatures the ability to do things like
repeal parts of or all
of the Bill of Rights if they chose, or to run away with some passing
emotional viewpoint which seized the focus of the body politic and was
at odds with the preservation of the constitution. This was done by
“constraining” the states’ right to FORCE Congress to call a
convention,
rather than just ignore the states’ desires, but the constraint was
that Congress was the body that would do the “calling” of the
convention, thus it had the power to curb any flighty, momentary
“fad”
idea of the states and prevent it from becoming a permanent part of our
nation’s supreme law.
Part 4 of 5
So the majority of delegates saw their “convention” option as a
compromise between their viewpoint and Mason’s.
Mason on the other hand saw this “compromise” as an insult. He’d
asked for
states to have a means for exerting their full power over an amendment
process. To offer him this convention option, with a convention that
CONGRESS alone would have full power over, was in his mind offering the
states a meaningless technical ability to initiate an amendment process
while stripping them of any control over it unless Congress CHOSE
VOLUNTARILY to call the convention in a way that offered full power to
the States. Thus, in Mason’s view, it placed even more power in the
hands of hte fed Gov, ie in the hands of Congress.
Mason SAID OUT LOUD to the assembled delegates that he felt their
“compromise” was a subterfuge and an insult. It did NOT give the
states any real power at all (and this is AS IT NOW STILL STANDS).
The point is that Mason was right, that it gave the states only a small
power to force the Congress to call a convention for proposing
amendments, in that they could take the initiative in this area of the
constitution (amendments), but then were forced to yield up any power
they had to Congress.
Mason said he’d cut off his right hand
before signing the constitution with Article V in this form. He
really did take it as an insult. He asked the delegates how many
really were opposed to adding one option which gave full control to all
states, and ALL AGREED THAT THIS WAS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.
Mason stormed out, and refused to return on the 17th to sign the new
Constitution.
So
. . . right there AT THE CONVENTION ITSELF on Sept 15 when the vote on
Art V was taken, EVERYONE WAS ON THE SAME PAGE, AND ALL UNDERSTOOD THINGS AS i
HAVE JUST EXPLAINED THEM, AND NEITHER SIDE UNDERSTOOD
ARTICLE V TO MEAN WHAT THE “COS” leadership falsely claims it does.
BOTH SIDES agreed that this was what Art V means. The difference was
that ALL the delegates except for 3 (Mason, Reynolds, and Gerry)
APPROVED of the amendment, while THREE did not.
This has been understood by all for over 200 years. No other view of Art V was
seriously entertained. And this is why even though the states did try a
few times, to use Art V’s amndment process, it was always shot down for
fear of the risks it posed, the HUGE risks.
Then a few years ago the hard left decided to “RAMP UP” it’s 50+ year
program pushing for an
Art V convention. From out of nowhere “The COS Project” arose and
lickity split it had a “grass roots” organization nation wide.
Who funded it? They won’t tell. Who pays the salaries of hte leadership?
They won’t tell. Meanwhile, the US
Justice Foundation has found
that Geo Soros has been in communication with Soros to find ways of
cooperating and merging their forces so as to bring about a new
Constitution within 5 years.
The “COS” leadership has, in service to this end, created a totally
false fictional narrative of “history.” They cherry pick SOME of the
facts to create this argument:
1. This convention option was put there by the delegates to the convention.
2. The reason given for adding another amendment process was to give the states
a process over which they had total control
3. It passed unanimously.
Then
from the above, it seems obvious that everything YOU have said must be
correct. But that’s NOT true — it’s DEAD WRONG and not even merely
wrong, but the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE to the truth, because the above 3
steps are taken out of context in a way that makes them tell such a t
horoughly false tale:
Repeating with elaboration based on the full history given above:
1.
Yes, it was put there to COMPROMISE WITH a minority view from a very
small number of delegates, so out of respect for the other view so
strongly held by them, it was added by those who OPPOSED a process
giving states full control over any amendment process.
2. A lie by
means of a half-truth. The reason it was put there is because THREE
amongst the delegates wanted a fully states-controlled amendment process
and NOT ONE of the other delegates liked that idea, and in fact ALL
were very opposed to it!! That was the ORIGINAL reason given by the
tiny minority of 3 for AN amendment giving the states power. But what
was ACTUALLY proposed as the 2nd option was only a TOKEN concession to
that demand by the 3 delegates, and did NOT grant the states ANY power
except to force CONGRESS to do something if 2/3 of the states expressed
their desire for that to Congress — after which the states would then
have yielded their powers to congress in all the details of creating the
convention, including who would be the delegates, etc. Any power the
states MIGHT have after they successfully sent 2/3 of their requests to
congress, would be theirs ONLY if Congress happened to say “we decide to
let YOU, the states, handle this part of the job.” IE, CONGRESS HAD
TOTAL ULTIMATE CONTROL.
3. Yes, it passed unanimously, by a vote of
every delegate present during the vote, ALL OF WHOM OPPOSED GIVING THE
STATES A MEANS FOR AMENIDNG THE CONSTITUTION EXCLUSIVELY ON THEIR OWN..
And what passed unanimnously was the 2nd option which BOTH SIDES
agreed deprived the states of any power at all once they forced
Congress into the act with their 2/3 requests. AND, the reason the
vote was unanimous was because Mason, Reynolds, and Gerry had all
stormed out of the convention in a fury, feeling insulted, and promising
not to sign the constitution because of this change to Article V because it was
NOT the change they felt necessary, and because they regarded it as BOTH a
subterfuge AND an insult, since they’d requested an amendment procedure giving
power to the states, and the convention option added to Art V was about the
furthest thing from that you could
ask for. So . . . they did NOT consider it a “compromise” but an insult.
In short, until the advent of the current COS movement’s
leadership which seized on a VERY flawed and inaccurate paper by Rob
Natelson in order to create the fictional narrative on which their
entire argument rests, NEITHER THE FEDERALISTS NOR THE FEDERALISTS NOR
ANYONE ELSE EVERY THOUGHT OF ARTICLE V AS “EMPOWERING” THE STATES IN
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS IN ANY WAY EXCEPT THE VERY LIMITED POWER TO FORCE OR OBLIGE
CONGRESS TO TAKE OVER THAT PROCESS VIA A CONVENTION IF THE STATES OULD MUSTER A
2/3 MAJORITY OF THEMSELVES MAKING APPLICATIONS TO
CONGRESS FOR AMENDMENTS. IE, no matter what your party, your position
in the world as congressman, judge, adminsitrator, educator, or citizen,
NO ONE saw ARticle V’s convention option as giving the states great
power over an amendment process.
It has been ONLY by the “spun” and twisted lies by omission that the
leaders of the current “cos” movement have made someting totally
false appear true, and then
added to that a more detailed narrative which was added to gradually as
they were forced to come up with ever more lies and further
truth-stretching and truth-denying to answer the objections of
constitutional scholars who pointed out the various contradictions with
fact, with history, and with itself that this argument was plagued with.
New things had to be spun or created from thin air. And finally,
they reached the level of untruth you hear them speaking today, which is
at odds with what virtually EVERY American familiar with Article V has
understood as the obvious “given” for over 200 years.
PART 5 OF 5
Rita, everyone’s trying to be polite here. They know you are wrong. There
is zero doubt of that. I can see that many anwering you with counter
arguments are well aware of your use of arguments which were INVENTED
during just the past very few years by the people behind this new
resuscitation of the left’s 50+ year battle to get an Art V convention
going. EVEN MARK LEVIN HAS FALLEN FOR IT, though there is strong
evidence he’s starting to have 2nd thoughts.
I am going to be blunt. You are not alone, Rita. This is a very seductive
argument
because it has been manufactured and then honed to being self
consistent, though it still contradicts historical fact. But you have
heard only from one side, and you have heard their FALSE rebuttals to
their opponents’ TRUE refutations of their claims.
They are very shrewed. Insidiously so. MANY on our side had repeatedly
challenged
their leadership to debates, and they refused. They then were VERY
super excellent at being liars, by claiming that we refuse to debate
with them!!! Reversing the truth in a big lie. Just recently,
there was a debate on Article V scheduled for Dec 3 in Marietta, GA.
I’m pretty sure it was Michael Farris who agreed well in advance to
debate on the pro- Art V “COS” side. About one week before the event,
when Farris found out his opponent would be Publius Huldah, he reneged.
He gave another one of their phony excuses. He tries to avoid
mentioning her because she is a wonderful woman who is well
credentialled and wants to show up the other side, whose leaders are in
this for self-serving reasons (they have made themselves into
celebrities with mass marketing techniques which have reached you and
convertied you and many others into their fans, purchasers of their
books and artifcles, members of their blog sites, etc etc and made t hem
into celebrities who command nice speaking fees), sol Publius Huldah
uses a “pen name” so that only the arguments will be heard and
focused
on, NOT “personalities.” She also will accept NO fees for her talks,
debates, speeches before various patriotic groups, etc. She is NOT
wealthy by a long shot. She wants to save our nation. Meanwhile
when her name does come up, Farris attacks HERE, and NEVER addresses her
actual arguments. He has been trying to find out her actual
identity, presumably in the hopes of finding some skeleton in her
closet, or a lack of credentials. He is NOT trying to find ways to
defeat her arguments against his position because he can’t defeat then
— they are correct and he’s wrong. So he’s searching for ways to
demonize the messenger and discredit the message by association,
insteand of answering her. She is a retired woman who retired about the
time Obama first came on the scene. She had planned her retirement
for YEARS and was looking forward to it. One of her projects was to
teach herself — a senior citizen — ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew so
she could read Biblical documents in the language they were originally
written in. She was a very successful litigation lawyer in her
career, and she is extremely intelligent and knowledgeable. When Obama
came along, she saw what he was and gave up all her retirement plans.
She made herself into a constitutional scholar and expert who now
receives calls from well known and renowned professors of constitutional
law and history just to chat and get her opinions. She is extremely
logical, and a fantastic teacher. Everyone who meets her loves her.
She’s a firm, brave, straight-talking little senior citizen with a
genuine smile for everyone who is serious about saving this nation. She
is TOTALLY unpretentious. She’s sincere through and through and is
occasionally forced to berate someone for treating her like some kind of
celebrity. She does NOT seek fame or fortune — who knows how many
years she has left to enjoy them even if that were someting she would
enjoy. In fact, nothing would please her more than to be able to see
this nation off on the right footing again, so she could go back to
really planning and caring for her garden, and to studying ancient
languages per above. She REFUSES fees when offered them. If you have
a group that wants her to speak there, you’ll have to pay her
transportation and accomodations if necessary, and she will refuse even a
penny of fee for her talk or debate. People around the country who
are starting up activist groups to start lobbying state legislatures to
correct the lies which the intensive lobbying efforts from your side
have planted in the minds of many state legislators already, will call
her for advice, which she freely gives, and then she will follow up and
remain available to them to help solve any problems they run into, give
them ideas and suggestions, answer their question. She is inundated
with calls from these, from people starting ujp Constitution Study
Groups. etc. NO fees. She lives a simple life. With NO funding, NO
outside help, NO advertising or public relations or any of that kind of
stuff, whe’s transfomed herself into one of the most knowledgeable
Constitutional scholars in the USA
today. She has NO ulterior
motives. She’s very afraid for our nation and on a mission to do her
bit to help prevent its downfall. Google her., or search on youtube.
WAtch a couple of her videos, of speeches she’s given. . Read her
articles. Go to her blogsite and read some or all of the articles she’s
written. YOU WILL BE GLAD YOU DID, BECAUSE YOU’LL LEARN A LOT.
This is VERY important, Rita. I have no axes to grind. I’m just someone
who loves this America
and what it stands for, as I’m sure you do to.
If you don’t educate yourself by checking everything you know on this
topic AT THE ORIGINAL SOURCES instead of taking things for granted when
you see footnotes, then I feel very sorry for you, because if your side
succeeds, as it has a good chance of doing, you are gong to wake up one
day to the shock of your life, you and many other well-meaning
conservatives, and you will never forgive yourself for NOT checking the
facts thoroughly.
I suggest you google Publius Huldah and read
HER material at her blog and the articles she’s written for web
magazines, and watch videos of her speeches. Also google Prof Edwin
Vieira, a well known and acknowledged professor of constitutional law.
Go to Facebook and search for Straight Talk About An Article V
Convention. Also at FB, search for Lynette Indiana, Sean Meehan, and
Publius Huldah. Read their stuff with an open mind. Natch you are
going to find things which oppose the things you currently believe.
Well, when you do, THEN you will know exactly what specifics to google
for to discover who’s right, or what’s right — the things they’re
saying or thethings you’ve heard from the COS people. Look at the
arguments you’ve heard, the rebuttals of them you find, and your side’s
claims which rebut the rebuttals. Those who have done this have
realized that they must change sides, as you will too, if you take my
suggestion. You will then see for yourself how you’ve been
bamboozled.
The “COS” canon is convincing, very much so, until you start digging
into it instead of just assuming it’s right.
I
am not asking you to believe me or anyone who comments here against the
views you’ve expressed. I’m asking you to do me, your country, and
yourself a favor by doing the above and checking out things at their
source to verify who’s right. Try NOT to let yourself be biased by the
demonizing of our side by the leadership of your side. Read the stark
facts, which will speak for themselves, if you only give them the
opportunity.
Rita, amongst all the other things, I ask you to consider one more:
Our
side is truly “grass roots” — it’s all individuals with web or blog
sites. Unlike several of the organized marketing experts on your
side, we do not have a well funded NATIONWIDE organization which sprang
into life almost full grown. Geo Soros is funding this struggle from
the left.to finalize their dream during the past 50+ years . The plan
is to destroy our Consgtitution. I don’t know what makes peole
equate a conventin with THEIR amendment ideas. Progressives are just
as much a part of our politidal populatiojn and will be shosen as
delegates too. Once there, they’ll be free to propose any amendments
they want. Repal of the 1st and/or 2nd amendments is sure to be
attempted, if not the 40th revision of the Constitution for hte New
States Of America, a project funded by the Ford Foundation tro the tune
of an estimated $25 million so far.
Sometimes I almost wish your side would succeed, Rita. Just to see the remorse
so many of them deserve to feel when they realize how easy it would probably
have been
for them to check out the facts, but they chose not to, and all the
worst things you consider impossible and erroneous information come to
pass right in front of their eyes. It will be a well deserved
comeuppance, but I have to hope I never see it, because it will mark the
death of the USA.
BTW Rita, here’s something on the Churchill quote, which I”d thought had originated with Mark Twain:
“A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”
C. H. Spurgeon, Gems from Spurgeon (1859). An earlier version appears in the Portland (Me.) Gazette, Sept. 5, 1820: “Falsehood will fly from Maine to Georgia, while truth is pulling her boots on.” Still earlier, Jonathan Swift wrote in The Examiner, Nov. 9, 1710: “Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it.”
I’m reminded of a line Joe Pesci, playing a lawyer, uttered in “My Cousin Vinny” “EVERYTHING THAT GUY JUST SAID IS BULLSHIT”
Rita,
You begin by implying that those of us brave men and women who are travelling around the commonwealth speaking in opposittion to an Article V Convention are liars. I, for one, am about tired of the cheap name calling and insults. It is difficult enough to have a disagreement if it is handled with dignity and respect as a principled disagreement. It is nearly impossible to do so when simply disagreeing means you are going to be accused of being “liars” and “enemies of the Constitution”.
I am one of those you are accusing of dishonesty. I travel and speak to TEA Parties, Town Halls, meetings of legislators, and anywhere else I can on this topic. I do so on borrowed and donated money. Those on our side of this issue are making personal sacrifices to educate people about the very real dangers of this process before it is too late. we do it on our own time and on our own dime. We do not have full time staff whose job it is to spend countless hours pushing an agenda. It is somewhat rewarding that given all that, we have your attention to the degree that you have to attack our character in an attempt to diminish our impact. Do a YouTube search for “Mitchell Shaw” and watch the presentations I have given on this topic. I accuse your side of being wrong. I do not accuse you of being liars or enemies. It’s not about the personalities involved; it’s about the data.
You claim that what you propose is not a Constitutional Convention. You are wrong. As someone with a background in Constitutional Law, you are (or at least should be) familiar with Black’s Law Dictionary. Mr. Farris should also be familiar with it. I have no doubt you have both used it to define legal terms on several occasions. It defines a Constitutional Convention as “A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the
people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or
amending its constitution.” So then, an Article V Convention IS a Constitutional Convention and any distinction is incredible and false. Considering that you are wrong on that, I refuse to gamble what liberty we have left on your Convention of States project.
C. Mitchell Shaw
Indeed, Mitch. The sheer hubris, belligerence, and intimidation alone are enough to turn one off to the rest of their (weak) arguments.
I keep checking back here for a reply from Rita. I guess she’s not going to offer one.
Rita,
You begin by implying that those of us brave men and women who are travelling around the commonwealth speaking in opposittion to an Article V Convention are liars. I, for one, am about tired of the cheap name calling and insults. It is difficult enough to have a disagreement if it is handled with dignity and respect as a principled disagreement. It is nearly impossible to do so when simply disagreeing means you are going to be accused of being “liars” and “enemies of the Constitution”. I am on of those you are accusing of dishonesty. I travel and speak to TEA Parties, Town Halls, meetings of legislators, and anywhere else I can on this topic. I do so on borrowed and donated money. Those on our side of this issue are making personal sacrifices to educate people about the very real dangers of this process before it is too late
Indeed, Mitch. The sheer hubris, belligerence, and intimidation alone are enough to turn one off to the rest of their (weak) arguments.
I have spent the last 2 hours writing a full point-by-point rebuttal of this article, but it is too long for a comments section. I am prepared to post it, but the contact page doesn’t appear to be letting it go through. Can someone acknowledge? Thanks.
I think Rita failed to mention that Michael Farris, the Director for Convention of States, is also known as Senior Staff Counsel for the Rutherford Institute. Hardly surprising that she throws out the same talking points as he. This entire COS sham is so full of holes it is swiss cheese, but there is a ton of money behind it from lots of players.
As the federal government rolls like a steam roller, we who all claim to want to get it under control fight over a tool placed in the Constitution specifically for the purpose of doing what we all claim we want. What’s wrong with that picture? Why is use of the took written into Article V argued as not a tool written into Article V? What is the convention method in Article V even there for if not to be utilized? ……..as the federal government continues to roll on while we fight amongst ourselves. For how long will we fight about it and let the government continue it’s course?
The framers of the Constitution were explicitly clear. The Article V convention is to REMEDY DEFECTS in the Constitution. It is not for reining in an out of control government.
Article VI, properly understood and applied, does that.
Our problems are not based on defects in the Constitution, but in blatant defiance of it. It does not need to be changed, it needs to be followed.
Per Madison’s notes from the 1787 Constitutional Convention, I understood that Col. Mason said that “shoul’d the government ever become oppressive as he verily believed would be the case” and that was the reason for the second part of Article V…at least by Madison’s words.
Read that quote in context. He suggested the convention process as a means to prevent Congress from impeding efforts to amend, not as a means of reining them in.
Yes I agree with you that the “oppression” he was referring to was Congress impeding amending the Constitution and that was the reason for adding the part about “on the application of 2/3rds of the several states, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” Yes, another way to get amendments added to the Constitution when the government becomes “oppressive.” So now, we have a runaway federal government including Congress that will not vote in favor of a balance budget or term limits to themselves and basically shutting down any thing that would assist in impeding their power. Is that the “oppressive” that Col. Mason was referring to?
I had a reply back to you rhinohunter, it was posted, and now it is gone. Not sure what kind of games this website is playing…like limiting my speech. I guess if they don’t like the truth, then they delete it.
Oops…I stand corrected. my reply was posted, but I guess this message board does not play well with my Ipad. Please forgive me thebullelephant.com for my accusations.
Like our federal government, promoters of an Article V convention brook no opposition. Competition or any quesrtioning of their ideas is not welcome. That is why at some tea parties, if you ask for the law or precedence for their claims, they never answer the question. And now their foundation, the claims of Robert Natelson, has been exposed. Watch the head of one of the most funded Article V promoters nonanswer the question here at 13:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGnTojPp82g
Rita, it looks like you haven’t fooled anybody with your “used car salesman” type attempt to sell a very bad idea.
You did an excellent job confirming that this is exactly what it appears to be. A very bad idea.
As the federal govt devours the states and continues to demand and mandate, what does everyone think the Framers of the Constitution would say if they asked us why didn’t we use the Article V tool that they gave us to stop the feds and our response was that we were scared of that and were too busy fighting over whether you Framers actually meant what you wrote??
The first thing I think they would say is, “What the heck is this internet thing?!?!?” After that, I think they would look at the moral decay that has occurred in this Country with the rise of political correctness, moral relativism, and the outright hostility towards religion, and weep. Then they would look at the character of our current crop of politicians, and say, “whatever you do, DON’T let these men of low quality destroy the document which so many of our friends and family fought and died to create.”
Dont let? What do you think the Supreme Court has done for decades? 9 humans in robes, perceived to be more noble than 300 million other Americans, pushing the nation in a direction by their sole decision, most often on large issues coming down to 1, perhaps 2 of those fallible humans. And so the nation goes.
No one claims, the founders did not claim, nor does the Constitution claim to be perfect. The founders vision was that we would become “a more perfect” union as time went on and there may be a time, in the becoming of a “more perfect union” that we may want to propose amendments.
America today has not become a more perfect union, my friends. We are so far away from what our founders vision was for America’s future, its nearly satirical, if it weren’t so tragic for our children and theirs.
The thought of this amazing, historically incredible document to be put into the hands of a government system that has declared our Creator null and void – a system that has declared speaking of a Creator as unconstitutional, is not the more perfect union our founders envisioned!
We have greatly fallen from our initial herald as a light and beacon of truth, justice and freedom. Our children leave public school ATHEISTS! Our government has established a national religion of secular humanism (which is atheism) which is the religion of all dictatorships since time began.
Read what our founders considered a “more perfect union.”
“The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.” John Jay, Original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court
“A bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district – all studied and appreciated as they merit – are the principal support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty.” Benjamin Franklin
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever.” Thomas Jefferson
“Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered
as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.” James Madison
“Don’t let anyone claim to be a true American… don’t let them claim the tribute of American patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics.” George Washington’s farewell
address
“I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses … Whether we look to the first Charter of Virginia … or to the Charter of New England … or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay … or to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut … the same objective is present … a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the
sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people … I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.” Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, wrote in 1954.
“I have always said, and will always say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens.” Thomas Jefferson
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.” Thomas Jefferson
We have become a more and more IMPERFECT union. To open this last legal remnant of protection of rights and its legal restriction of government, to the atheistic apostasy that is federal government and the supreme court will prove our utter undoing.
True the existing governmental system does not follow the constitution BUT at least the possibility exists that the constitution, if it were to be read, understood and defended by the People, that we would have within our hands and minds the legal authority to show existing violation of its principles. The power of the Constitution is only in our knowledge and defense of it.
Putting this document in the hands of today’s congressional circus, and what is posing as federal government and the judicial system, will give these infidels the long awaited opportunity to change the language of the Constitution. What a relief to those judges and elected officials – not to have to deal with their violation of its precepts. If what is posing as federal government has the opportunity to shred the language so they aren’t in violation of the supreme law of the land, don’t you think they will do it?
You are repeating a Natelson talking point, which has no basis in history. Article V is to remedy defects in the Constitution, not for reining in non-compliance.
But pray tell…how could it ever be used as you propose? That could only result in a run away constitutional convention! You people are truly amusing.
Your question is unclear.
Yes, it could result in a runaway convention. The 1787 convention did. Madison wrote Federalist # 40, justifying why they exceeded their authority, not denying it. His justification would be just as valid today. The people have an unalienable right “to alter or abolish” our form of government.
Article V has been used countless times, and we have 17 more amendments, after the Bill of Rights, to show for it. You are “truly amusing” when you automatically equate Article V *only* with the second method therein, and ignore the first.
The author intentionally misleads her readers by including only the second half of the purpose for the 1787 Convention–the first half, which the convention disobeyed was “for the sole and express purpose OF REVISING THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION” (see Federalist #40, James Madison.) Also, she misleads the gullible by suggesting that the Constitution places limits on Congress having an “unlimited spending power” when it comes to things like “the common Defence.” Clearly, the author is not in-touch with the arguments of Alexander Hamilton: “Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity…But would it be wise, or would it not rather be the extreme of folly, to stop at this point, and to leave the government intrusted with the care of the national defense in a state of absolute incapacity to provide for the protection of the community against future invasions of the public peace, by foreign war or domestic convulsions? If, on the contrary, we ought to exceed this point, where can we stop, short of an INDEFINITE POWER of providing for emergencies as they may arise?” — (Federalist #34, Alexander Hamilton)
Tell us, explain to us, simply and to the point…….What is the Article V convention method is there for? Why is it there? Please explain it.
I suspect that you can read as well as I can, but here is what Hamilton wrote in Federalist #85: ‘By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” ‘ I hope that is sufficiently simple & to the point for you.
My question was why is it there? If we will just look at the tool, as if to look at a wrench, daring not to use it, while the pump valve spews water endlessly, why have the tool? There is a reason it is there.
Because it is a hammer, not a wrench. If you pound on the valve, it will only leak more.
The framers said it is to remedy defects in the Constitution.
And that is all the Constitution gives them the power to do: “call.” To suggest they have more power than is to take a “liberal” view of the Necessary and Proper Clause (which should be anathama to conservatives). I also find it incongruous that those opposed to a convention offer nullification as a better alternative but are not willing to give the states the benefit of that same nullification power when it comes to Congress meddling in the details of a convention.
You free to argue your limited interpretation of what it means to call a convention to the Supreme Court. Oh, wait. Aren’t they the ones shredding the constitution on behalf of Congress?
By the way, you still haven’t gotten to the part where we discuss WHO will actually be delegates to this convention. Why do you believe the liberals and moderates will ever let strong, principled conservatives have any chance of being delegates to an Article V convention?
Why do you believe strong, principled conservatives, in the 30 states where Republicans control both houses of the legislature, will let liberals dictate who is chosen as delegates to an Article V convention?
In 2013 Republicans in Virginia controlled the General Assembly, the Senate, and the Governors mansion, and those same Republicans passed one of the biggest tax increases in Virginia history. Do you think those people are going to send someone like Mike Farris or Bob Marshall to be a delegate to an Article V Convention?
No. What you will see are moderate and liberal Republicans siding with Democrats to select a bipartisan selection of hard core Democrats, and squishy, moderate Republicans. This will happen in state after state after state, even in the 30 states where Republicans control both houses. The only place you will see them follow hard ideological lines is in the states where Democrats control both houses. There you will get nothing but socialists.
Are those the kind of people you want to hand over the job of amending our Constitution to?
So who, if anyone do YOU trust? Did you vote in the last election? Why did you bother since no one is worth of your trust?
“So who, if anyone do YOU trust? Did you vote in the last election?”
Absolutely I voted in the last election. I vote every year. In some cases I voted for good candidates. In others I voted for the least bad candidate. In all cases I voted against Democrats. I will do the same this year.
The problem isn’t who I trust to de a delegate to a convention. In many respects we would probably trust the same people to be delegates. The problem is the people I don’t trust will never let the people I do trust be delegates to the convention.
It’s one thing for a politician to break his promise not to vote for a tax increase. You can vote against them in the next primary. It is an entirely different thing if a politiciian breaks his promise to uphold our founding principles at a constitutional convention.
“the people I don’t trust will never let the people I do trust be delegates to
the convention” You must have this in writing to be so sure of yourself.
Actually, yes, we do have exactly that, in writing. From James Madison himself, in Federalist 49 and 50.
What would a Virgina Delegation, if led by, say Speaker Howell, proposal to amend?
Would the Virginia Delegation’s amendment proposal be to 1st change the name from “The United States Constitution”, to perhaps, “The Dominion Constitution”?
Hey Steve, are you imitating an ostrich now because you want the Con-Con?
Steve, please tell us how this is all just a coinsidence? A coinsidence that this is all happening just a couple weeks after the Republican’s take control of the US House and Senate. And, they “think” they now have the 3/4 control of state legislators to let Republican’s re-write the U.S. Constitution, to the American Corporation’s liking?
The best Constitution money can buy?
You are confusing Republican control of legislators with conservative control.
A Republican majority does not equal a conservative majority.
Conservatives don’t have the upper hand these days in politics, religion, government, the media, schools or healthcare but somehow we are guaranteed we will have the upper hand in a national bi-partisan convention when we can’t even control a political party or political convention. This defies logic. What Convention of States folks call “fear” we call prudence. But isn’t it a horrible shame that the conservatives are now so divided, fighting each other, being told elections will never solve our problems (dictators would live to hear that!) while the Left continues its community organizing, registering voters and winning more elections. The Left has accomplished its goal pretty well, I would say!
please read my reply above
The arguments of Hamilton are meaningless when the Supreme Court has provided Congress with nearly limitless power. Federalist quotes are cute but they are not going to convince the Supreme Court to reverse their errant rulings. Your plan to do that is, what again?
I have quoted both Madison & Hamilton here, and their comments are neither “meaningless” nor “cute.” These were the arguments used to justify adoption of the Constitution. It seems that like the author of this article, you fail to understand that Hamilton intended the spending power of Congress to be UNLIMITED, or in his words, “INDEFINITE.” The Supreme Court has therefore interpreted him correctly. Your desire, therefore, to alter this is contrary to the chief proponents of the Constitution. I have simply related their own words so that you might understand this, as most Americans have never bothered to read the Federalist Papers, and the author of this article is counting on that.
Brutus,
I seem to recall Hamilton left the convention in a huff not long after his 6-hour monolugue on 18 June was met with polite silence and his “British Plan” died tragically a premature death. If you feel Hamilton’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause was right, and endorse the Court’s granting of unlimited power under it, I assume you are pretty comfortable with the current state of things.
Yes, my desire to reword the Commerce Clause runs counter to ONE proponent of the Constitution, certainly not all, and not even the most persuasive one, in my opinion. Frankly, I’ve never understood the importance many give to the Federalist in understanding the Constitution (Jay didn’t even attend the Convention). In 1824, Madison said a better source for understanding the document was “the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security.” (letter to Henry Lee)
You just refuted your own argument, Gary. What do you think Madison could possibly have been referring to in that letter, other than The Federalist? Those were the arguments for the Constitution, and they were the focal point of the exact sense and understanding of those who ratified it.
Madison & Hamilton were of the same mind in creating the 1787 Convention & tricking the delegates into thinking they might actually follow the rules. They were of the same mind in swearing delegates to oaths of secrecy & preventing notes or even scraps of paper from being taken outside the convention. They were of the same mind in opposing a Bill of Rights. Each even even included the other’s ideas in several of the Federalist Papers they wrote and later identified as their own. Certainly, there are many others who conspired with these two, but they are the best known and the most responsible. Madison may have later come to his senses and realized that the Constitution gave the central government too much power, but together he had already convinced an entire faction which sought to strip power from the States (while at the same time denouncing factions) and centralize that power in the hands of a few that their way was the best. The fact that you now want to “correct” the Commerce Clause is simply another example of realizing too little, too late that the Constitution destroyed the sovereignty of the States. The COS makes no effort to restore this sovereignty, and so cannot possibly restore what was lost in 1787.
The author’s credibility was gone with their very first point. Not a constitutional convention? Wrong. Better go check your law dictionary again.
“Constitutional convention” is literally on this 2015 application.
http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/resolutions/senate/joint/13#
My mind boggles at the sheer lunacy of the people that believe that this would be a good idea.
My mind boggles at the idea that thinking people will not truthfully examine the facts.
I agree, Gary. Here are some facts for you to examine:
This movement is built upon false claims.
They claim it is not a constitutional convention. Go read the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary. It is a constitutional convention.
They say the convention of 1787 did not exceed its authority. Read Federalist #40, where James Madison explains why they DID EXCEED THEIR AUTHORITY.
They say the states will control the convention. Go read the Congressional Research Service report (#R42589, p.18). It says Congress has historically “asserted broad and substantive authority over the full range of the Article V Convention … from start to finish.”
Don’t be so desperate to do SOMETHING, that you fall for these false promises.
Obviously I’m not falling for false promises. A year ago I was like you; I actually went to Richmond and lobbied, with others, against a convention. Then I heard the COS Project plan explained. I went back to the books (I teach the Constitution) and re-examined why and how I had reached my previous conclusions. I decided I had been superficial (and wrong) in how I had approached the topic. I had accepted unfounded fears at face value, without thorough analysis.
One of the most convincing points for me was the realization that the phrase “obey the Constitution, don’t change it” actually contained a false premise: Congress does indeed obey the Constitution — as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Constitution they are legally entitled to obey can be found proudly displayed on several government websites. It is called: “U.S. Constitution, Analysis and Interpretation” and its 3000+ pages are filled with the thousands of Supreme Court decisions that have expanded government power (and the few which didn’t) over our last 200+ years.
Take an honest look at the wide horizon of legislation that has been justified under the Commerce Clause and ask yourself why Congress would ever, on their own volition, abandon that expansive power. They will not.
There are only two ways to reverse those rulings and return the Commerce Clause to the Founder’s intent: either the Court begins, opinion by opinion, to reverse their wayward decisions, or we reverse them by Constitutional amendment, a re-wording of the Commerce Clause to return it to its original narrow meaning. (OK, there is a third way: you could convince the American people to elect 218 original constructionist Congressmen and 51 original constructionist Senators who agree to ignore the Court’s existing rulings and legislate only as guided by original intent………. good luck with that).
You “naysayers” (as I feel it appropriate to call you) are convinced 1787 was a runaway, but no one has yet been able to show me where the Confederation Congress was provided authority in the Articles to constrain the Grand Convention to a mere revision of the Articles. I believe the Congress understood this limitation and thus only “recommended” to the states that the convention constrain itself to a revision. Nearly all the states empowered their delegations with broad-reaching power that went well beyond revision; they were empowered to “discuss all such Alterations and Further Provisions as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union,” which to me clearly extends well beyond revision if revision alone would not meet that goal, which is what they concluded.
What alarms me greatly is the blatant fear-mongering and the ubiquitous “opinion offered as fact” that goes on on your side of the table.
I was struck by the fact that Tuesday in the House Rules Committee we heard speaker after speaker talk on a single topic: whether a COS was a good idea or not. No one spoke about the weather or who was going to be in the Super Bowl. I’m certain that if one of us citizens had we would have been admonished to stay on topic and, if we persisted, kindly shown the door. There was an expectation as to what was appropriate to be discussed that was clearly understood by all, and it wasn’t even written down.
Yet we are told by your side that if a convention is held where 34 states have instructed their delegations to only allow amendments that meet a certain criteria to be discussed, that it will be “Katie bar the door” and the 16 other delegations will find a way to ram a brand new constitution through the convention and get it magically ratified by 38 states, leading to a Communist States of America, with George Soros as the President-presumptive.
I’m frankly not concerned about George Soros or his liberal minion groups. They want nothing to do with the COS Project plan or a convention conducted under its rules.
In the end, it matters not what you think or I think, it matters what the Virginia Assembly Delegates and Senators think. I intend to see they have the facts of the matter available (which we’ve alreadydone) and urge them to make their decision based on those facts and not on unfounded fear.
Show me the law that gives the power to limit the scope of an Article V convention.
Show me the law that states an Article V convention would be a “convention of states”.
Show me the law that says delegates to the convention would be beholden to any state, party, organization, or any outside force.
Don’t bother with citing historical precedent. Precedent is not legally binding.
Why do you think a law is necessary for people to agree to constrain a discussion to a specified topic?
Why do you think the states would put up with Congress excluding them from such a convention?
I can indeed show you a law that might have been, had it passed the Virginia Assembly last year, that would have held Article V convention delegates who do not adhear to their instructions to a Class 6 felony prosecution (SB105).
“Why do you think a law is necessary for people to agree to constrain a discussion to a specified topic?”
Because this is for all the marbles!!! Do you think the liberals and the people that have been looking to destroy the Constitution for decades will just roll over and play dead because you asked them to and said, “pretty please”??? Do you think they won’t press every advantage they can, every chance they get???
“Why do you think the states would put up with Congress excluding them from such a convention?”
Because they wouldn’t have a choice. If Congress calls a convention that is made up of delegates of their choosing, or even decides to involve the states but gives them proportional representation (like the electoral college), some states would fight it, and they would take their case to the Supreme Court. Then if the court rules against them, there is nothing they can do. There is no higher authority to appeal to.
So naturally, if Congress is successful in “hijacking” the Convention of States, the Sstates (or the people in convention, as Congress may choose) would then be REQUIRED to ratify whatever came out of such a convention. I wonder, to which HIGHER AUTHORITY are the states appealling when they pass a nullification bill?
What it comes down to, is that you do not trust your fellow citizens, you are one of the remnant who holds “the secret knowledge” of the Founder’s intent; you are part of the elite, the only only ones who should be allowed to rule because of your enlightened view of what the Constitution really should mean.
According to Jefferson and Madison (and I hope you wold agree) we are perfectly entitled to chuck our Constitution entoto and adopt a new one. The old one has been rendered nearly meaningless by the Supreme Court, it has been (ab)used to oppress us and nearly bankrupt us, and its protections have been turned on their heads, so why continue under it?
“So naturally, if Congress is successful in “hijacking” the Convention of States, the Sstates (or the people in convention, as Congress may choose) would then be REQUIRED to ratify whatever came out of such a convention”
No, they would not be required to ratify what came out of the convention. But then we would have to trust the politicians in the states enough to try and stop what was produced, and that fight could end up going on forever. There is no requirement that a time limit would have to be placed on ratifying the product of an Article V convention. It could hang out over our heads forever.
George Soros and his buddies would then be able to take his BILLIONS of dollars, and work on turning state legislatures one by one and getting them to ratify the new Constitution. The liberal media would spin and lie, and pressure people to support the new Consitution. It would go on and on and on, without ceasing, and you and Mike Farris and Mark Levin, having finally gotten the convention you wanted, would be standing in the corner with looks of horror on your faces, thinking, “My God. What have we done?”
“What it comes down to, is that you do not trust your fellow citizens”
You’re damn right I don’t trust my fellow citizens. Give me one good reason why I should trust the guy down the street with my right to free speech? Give me one good reason why I should trust a politician out of Vermont to uphold my right to keep and bear arms at an Article V convention?
I can’t even trust the guy at the Jiffy Lube not to try and rip me off, so why would I trust anyone with the founding document of our Country??
I will ignore the rest of that paragraph since I know you are getting furstrated now.
“According to Jefferson and Madison (and I hope you wold agree) we are perfectly entitled to chuck our Constitution entoto and adopt a new one”
You are absolutely correct. They gave us the ability to completely chuck out the Constitution. It is called an Article V convention. Thank you for finally admitting to us that your actual goal is to completely re-write the Constitution since you feel it is meaningless. I for one, happen to like living under the freedoms it provides.
I love the way you naysayers love to hypothesize. Such vivid word pictures, such flights of hyperbole. Your lack of trust must have you sleeping with one eye open.
You know, you started the insults awhile back, which is a sure sign that you realize you have lost this argumemt. I am still waiting for you or anyone who supports an Article V convention to provide ANY legal foundation for the claims they have made.
Until someone shows me that backing, I guess you are stuck with my hypothetical scenarios, all of which, I will add, have a far better chance of coming true than an Article V convention going the way you think it will.
Are you Publius Huldah? You sure do debate like her. I think she has some good points, but sometimes her arrogance and self-righteousness drive me crazy. I pray to God for his guidance during these trying times since I see great points from both sides of the debate. However, I will not let fear guide my decision.
The legal foundation for an Article V Convention is to be found, of all places, in Article V, with a little help from the 10th Amendment. It is also firmly planted in logic. If 34 states apply for a convention for the exact same purpose, and will instruct their delegations that they are only permitted to discuss amendments which meet that purpose, and will then be willing to monitor their delegates and take action if they deviate from those instructions, no “shredding of the Constitution” can or will occur. George Soros and his minions want no part of a convention they cannot control, and no one has yet demonstrated to me how liberals will gain control of such a convention. Yes, Congress may attempt to use the NPC to exert control over the selection and activity of delegates, and the 34 states will vigorously oppose such action through nullification and the courts.
Desperate cries that we will “loose” our precious Constitution are intellectually vacuous; we “lost” our Constitution when John Marshall decided his Court was going to be the ultimate arbitor of what the document meant. Since that time the “shredding” has been non-stop and there now remain no effective limits on the federal government’s power.
You will not reverse that with piecemeal nullification actions. You will not reverse that with classes on the Constitution attended by a handful of 60-year old veterans. You will not reverse that with the election to Congress of strict constructionists (if you can find them) who are preemptorily despised as “extremists.”
Nothing is going to reverse this unremitting “shredding” (and notice I put it in quotes, unlike some of the opposition) until the ambiguous language that Patrick Henry and others warned us about is rendered beyond non-ambiguous.
You will never repeal the 17th Amendment without a COS. Others have tried and failed miserably. And until you do you will never again enjoy the balance of power in our government that the Framers intended. Never.
Frankly, I’m afraid America long ago went past the tipping point that could allow a return to Constitutional government. But just in case I’m wrong, I’m willing to put my remaining feeble energy into what might just be our last opporrtunity to get Washington’s attention.
If the COS Project fails, I see no alternative but to begin taking steps to prepare my family and loved ones for economic disaster. I will probably continue to teach the Constitution, because I enjoy talking about the document of power it was before the Courts turned it into “mush.” I enjoy explaining how the states used to have demonstrable power in the Senate. I enjoy pointing to the constitutional literacy that De Tocqueville discovered in the early 1800’s. I enjoy jumping into the debates of the Grand Convention.
The COS Project may be a long-shot (four Democrat-controlled states are needed), but I see it as the only shot we have.
I really don’t have time to continue to explain to people who will not listen why this is our best shot. So this will be my last post in these spaces. There are other minds in other places more willing to listen – and think.
” If 34 states apply for a convention for the exact same purpose,”
Show me where it says in Article V that petitions for a convention must be of a similar subject in order to qualify as a valid petition to meet the 34 state threshold? Show me any case law that supports your argument?
” and will instruct their delegations that they are only permitted to discuss amendments which meet that purpose, and will then be willing to monitor their delegates and take action if they deviate from those instructions, no “shredding of the Constitution” can or will occur.”
Show me the law that says the states can control their delegates once they have been selected? Show me the case law that says a state can remove a delegate to a convention after they have been seated.
Even other CoS supporters (and you yourself on this very blog post) have said that only the delegates to the convention can control the scope of the convention. Even the subject matter that is outlined in Lingamfelter’s petition for a convention can be broadly interpreted to allow delegates to do just about anything they want. Democrat delegates can easily fit George Soros’ pet issue of removing private money from campaigns into the idea of “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.”
“George Soros and his minions want no part of a convention they cannot control, and no one has yet demonstrated to me how liberals will gain control of such a convention.”
The state legislators will vote to put the liberals in charge. I have asked you before who you think is more likely to be a delegate from Virginia to an Article V convention? Mike Farris and his supporters, or a slate of Democrats and moderate Republicans? If you truly think you can have an Article V convention with just a roomful of Mike Farris’es channeling their inner Madison, you are deluded.
“Desperate cries that we will “loose” our precious Constitution are intellectually vacuous”
No they are not. Wishful cries of “we know the facts! We can control an Article V convention!” without any legal backing, and established case law in opposition is the definition of intellectually vaccuous.
The problem here is, you see the Constitution as already shredded, so for you it doesn’t matter if the whole thing gets re-written. You don’t seem to understand that, as bad as you think things are now, they can get a whole lot worse, and there are a lot of us that don’t want to be put in the position of having to say, “we told you so.”
Well said, Well said.
Wrong again. I sleep with the other eye open.
And sometimes he sleeps with one eye closed, yet another refutation of your hypothesis.
Hear, Hear GOPer
The author of the article has apparently removed my post here which
reported on a new development which FACTUALLY proves the “COS” position
100% wrong with 100% certainty. This is typical behavior from the “COS”
people. When something they cannot refute is posted, or something very
very convincing is posted on their site, in a thread on FB, or a comment
after an article like this one, or a website, they simply delete it.
It’s the SECOND TIME I have tried to have important factual info posted
here, only to see it disappear within hours.
My post here
yesterday is the second one which has been deleted. If this site is like
others, when a guest author’s article is published, the author does not
have authority to permanently ban a person, as many “COS” sites are
infamous for doing to knowledgeable adversaries at their own sites, BUT
the author is empowered to delete specific comments.
You know that
the COS position is that the states will run the convention and send
their own delegates there, presumably from their own legislatures. This
is obviously false from the language of Article V but the “COS”
propaganda refers to historical precedent — very erroneously and
falsely spun BTW — and the precedent would NOT be binding anyway even
if true, which it isn’t — and furthermore until the recent advent of
the latest push for an Article V convention, everyone in US history
understood that under Article V it would be CONGRESS who determines the
nature of the convention, choosing its time and place and the method of
delegate selection, etc. (That’s what Article V says in very simple,
obvious, straightforward language, ie that Congress “shall call” the
convention.) But the “COS” people just disregard this and come up with a
false rigamarole allegedly showing that the convention will be run by
the states WHICH HAS NOW ALSO BEEN PROVEN FALSE AGAIN, BUT THIS TIME BY
ACTUAL PREPARATORY ACTIONS FOR THE CONVENTION, TAKEN BY THE STATES, WHO
THEMSELVES ARE ALMOST AS CORRUPT AS CONGRESS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOLD
THEIR SOULS FOR A MESS OF FEDERAL POTTAGE. The proof is this:
Below
is an excerpt from a letter sent to his constituents by Virginia State
Senator Richard Black (sent also to all voters in the State and to
others around the nation). You can access the FULL letter here, and I
strongly recommend you do:
http://secure.campaigner.com/C…
I
STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU READ HIS ENTIRE LETTER AT THE LINK JUST ABOVE, but
here’s the excerpt from it regarding the notes he had ONLY RECENTLY
obtained from a meeting of 50 STATE LEGISLATORS which took place in
Washington DC on Dec 9 to discuss to make early plans for an Article V
convention. The excerpt from the Senator’s letter is between the two
lines of asterisks:
**********************************************************************************
Planners Are Already Moving to Loosen Restraints on the Scope of a Convention:
“Assembly of STATE Legislatures” is a group of legislators planning the Article V
Convention. About FIFTY state legislators met December 9, 2014 in
Washington DC. Notes from this meeting show that (these STATE) lawmakers
1
TABLED a motion to restrict the scope of the Convention to only the subject
matter of the state applications, and also
2
REJECTED
a motion which would have prevented congressmen and senators, federal
judges and governors from serving as delegates to the Convention.
This is an early indication that (EVEN STATE) politicians want to have a more open process and may
want to appoint members of Congress, the US Senate and federal judges to amend the Constitution.
*********************************************************************************
This
proves that even state legislators intend to open up the convention
exactly as everyone has known would happen for 200 years until the most
recently revived push for an Article V convention by the left and a few
unwitting conservatives who have fallen for their FICTIONAL NARRATIVE
ABOUT IT BEING STRICTLY A “CONVENTION OF STATES” — a term used only
loosely once or twice in history to describe what everyone understood to
be a constitutional convention, and which is defined as one in Black’s
Law Dictionary of that era.
The COS position has been that this
convention’s topics would be restricted SOLELY to a few specific
amendments proposed to Congress by the States. During ALL of US history
prior to the very recent advent of The COS Project and other recently
activated groups pushing for an Article V convention, IT HAS BEEN AN
UNQUESTIONED GIVEN that Congress, NOT the states, would control the
selection of delegates, and that such a convention CANNOT be restrained
from considering anything it wishes to consider, even to proposing the
abolition of our current constitution and its replacement with an
entirely new one.
As you see from the above, EVEN STATE LEGISLATORS want people OTHER THAN THEMSELVES to be delegates.
Amongst
MANY other contradictions with the universally accepted views by all
experts of the past 200+ years which the new “COS” re-write of history
claims are true, are these two:
1. The states will control the convention
2.
The convention’s scope will be strictly limited to the amendments the
states had proposed for it in their applications to congress for the
Convention.
From the above, we now see that both of these are 100%
FALSE, as I and countless others have tried to explain to those who are
still under the sway of the false narrative manufactured by the “COS”
advocates via distortion, out-of-context quoting, bald faced untruths,
and false “spin.”
Note that in a private meeting of 50 STATE
LEGISLATORS in Washington DC, where they were preparing what they wish
to do if asked by Congress or permitted by Congress to have a say in
constructing the convention, even the NATIONAL GROUP “The Assembly of
STATE Legislators” wish the convention to have an open agenda, AND they
wish to push for having FEDERAL CONGRESSMEN, SENATORS, AND JUDGES
INCLUDED AS DELEGATES TO THE CONVENTION.
They, too understand the
truth, 100% consistent with the simple language of Article V which gives
the states only TWO powers w/regard to this convention option:
1. To force Congress to call a convention and
2.
To ratify its output ASSUMING THE CONVENTION ITSELF DOES NOT CHANGE THE
RATIFICATION PROCEDURE WHICH IT HAS THE UNQUESTIONABLE AUTHORITY TO DO.
Why
don’t you read the opinions of the Framers as they gave it themselves,
in context, in COUNTLESS places and just TRY to find, ANYWHERE IN THE
200+ YEARS AFTER 1787, an explanation of Article V that even remotely
agrees with the claims of the very recent “COS” movement’s revival of
this topic? YOU CANNOT BECAUSE IT IS COMPLETELY WRONG AND FALSE and thus
there EXISTS no historical confirmation of their view of an Article V
convention. NO ONE before in all US history has EVER made the false
claims for an Article V convention which the current “COS” movement
makes for it. From the founders themselves onward, EVERYONE has
understood the unquestionable view which contradicts the spin the “COS”
movement has put on the nature of this convention
Here we now have
the Assembly of STATE Legislators discussing what THEY wish if the
convention is called, and it is EXACTLY WHAT THE “COS” LEADERSHIP HAS
BEEN TELLING YOU CANNOT HAPPEN. They want FEDERAL JUDGES and also
MEMBERS OF OUR CORRUPT CONGRESS to be delegates to the convention. So . .
. EVEN IF THE “COS” LEADERSHIP WERE RIGHT — which it most definitely
is NOT — we see that the corrupted state governments would still choose
to do exactly what the “COS” leadership says they will not do.
All
50 states get funding of one sort or another from the Fed Gov, and it
ranges from about 20% to 45% of each state’s total spending. Elected
state officials, including the Governors and the state legislators, have
thus sold their souls — and the rights of their citizens — for a mess
of pottage. There have been numerous cases of state legislatures and/or
Governors talking big about stopping Fed intrusion into education,
overly burdensome environmental mandates, etc etc, then caving in and
not doing anything about them. Why? Because the Fed Gov threatens to
reduce or end its subsidies, grants, matching funds, etc etc to the
state. That would require the state government to either cut state
programs or raise taxes — AND LOSE THE NEXT ELECTION. So . . . state
governments have become corrupted too. ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS
ABSOLUTELY. They cave in to being in cahoots with the Fed Gov even when
they know it’s wrong, to preserve their own jobs. And ultimately it’s
the people who are also to blame, for WANTING to participate in the
whole scam of our corrupted system — the people DO throw people out of
office if they fail to “bring home the bacon” from Washington DC. The
people’s VALUES have been corrupted. Each state’s citizens WANT their
reps to get money for THEIR state that was seized by the Fed Gov from
OTHER states, and they will NOT re-elect someone whose principled stand
protecting their liberties under the Constitution leads to a loss in Fed
funding. The ultimate problem is sourced in the altered values of the
people themselves, and their ignorance of where this is all steering us.
People no longer understand their founding documents or sufficiently
value their freedoms, or understand what is necessary to avoid losing
their freedoms.
I’ll bet you will NOT see the above news reported
at ANY “COS”-advocacy site, because just as Rita has deleted two of my
comments here, and just as this is very common practice at MANY COS
websites, blogsites, and FB pages, where the news, the facts, and the
arguments are censored or deleted when they offer too convincing an
argument for the truth, or some fact which provides too-convincing
evidence or proof that their claims are false, SO WILL THEY CENSOR THE
NEWS ABOVE. And I would not be at all surprised if this comment gets
deleted quite promptly, as my prior one was.
I urge you to go to the link above before the information in this comment is again deleted by Rita.
PS
to Noah and anyone who reads this. This is a copy of a post above,
which itself was a copy of the SECOND long comment of mine that was
deleted from amongst these comments. I have several long comments here
but at least one long one was deleted because, I think, I challenged
Rita to answer a couple of Qs that I knew she would be unable to, as a
consequence of the fact that she’s simple wrong and I think I showed
that in a way that anticipated her means of weaseling out of it, and
deprived her of it. Well, this comment (above) was posted a day ago,
and that’s when I noticed that a SECOND one, on this same topic, had
been deleted. So this time I re-wrote the whole thing cuz I hadn’t
kept a copy of it. And I posted it at the top in the box where new
comments are added. Then I had an idea, and copied it, and added as a
reply down below, and now I’m adding it here too. This way, I’m hoping
Rita won’t find both copies of it, because she DID in fact delete not
only the first long one, and not only the second long one, but also my
total re-write of the second long one. However, fortunately she did
not notice that I’d copied it and pasted it in as a reply to Noah’s
comment way above. So . . . with only that one duped copy of the
second re-write of the second article she’d deleted remaining, I decided
to take some insurance, copy IT, and past a copy here too. I’m hoping
she won’t find either, but if she discovers the dupe I added as a reply
to you above, I’m hoping she won’t think I’d made TWO copies this time,
and that she will not find this one.
I listed three pieces of evidence. You avoided even touching them. Good choice. I wouldn’t want to argue with a dictionary either. … Or Madison. … Or the history of Congress.
[GP: “…but no one has yet been able to show me where the Confederation Congress was provided authority in the Articles to constrain the Grand Convention to a mere revision of the Articles.”]
For someone who teaches the Constitution, I am surprised you are unfamiliar with the 13th Article of the Confederation, which was brought up constantly in debate. There was only ONE way to amend the Articles of Confederation, and the 1787 Convention did not conform to this. Furthermore, it was not the Confederation Congress, but the sovereign STATES who instructed their delegates on what to do, and none of their instructions involve approving a new Constitution. As you know, since you teach the Constitution, “all powers not delegated are reserved.” Therefore, since they had no power to adopt a new Constitution, the delegates to the convention exceeded their powers. Isn’t that something you so-called “conservatives” complain about today’s Congress doing on a regular basis? Madison, Hamilton & others conspired to prevent the delegates from adhering to their instructions by making everyone swear an oath of secrecy, and forbidding anyone (except Madison) from taking notes. We can be thankful that Robert Yates & Luther Martin defied their wishes. We would be worse than “useful idiots” if we think that similar chicanery will not govern a COS.
Brutus,
You’ve evaded my question: where did Congress derive the authority to limit the scope of the Grand Convention? Everyone points to the language of Congress’ resolution without providing the justification for it. If Congress had no authority to limit the scope of the Convention (and I believe they recognized that limitation) than full power to instruct the delegates rested, as you point out, with the States.
I’m sure you’ve read the actual instructions to the delegates, they are readily available. Most say nothing about revision and in fact provide broad-reaching power to do what was necessary “to render the federal Constitution adequate…” If minor revisions were inadequate I see nothing wrong, nor did most of the state delegations (NY excepted) with a remove and replace PROPOSAL. That was all it was of course: A PROPOSAL, which Congress and the States could have rejected outright – but didn’t. Article 13 was complied with of course when the states unanimously ratified the new Constitution. Everyone seems to forget that Jefferson and Madison heartily endorsed the “remove and replace’ option in the Declaration as well as in their letters.
I fail to see how an oath of secrecy forced anyone to abandon his instructions, and none did when you see those instructions as powerful as they in fact were. Yates and Lansing left rather than go beyond what they felt were the limits of their instructions. Good on them.
Enough for now. getting tired of typing.
Have you recognized the flawed argument you are making? On the one hand, you argue that the Confederate Congress had no power to constrain the 1787 convention, even though Article XIII clearly stated that you could not amend the Articles of Confederation without the consent of Congress.
Then you turn around and argue that you CAN constrain an Article V convention, even though there is nothing in Article V that says you can and you have no other legal foundation to back up that claim.
Do you understand that the convention did not amend the Articles? It proposed a new document, which Congress and the states unanimously agreed to.
Ultimately, only the delegates who attend a convention can constrain a convention. If they are properly instructed and held to their oaths, the convention will proceed as planned.
Sorry, I’ve more important things to do than argue with you. Bye.
“Ultimately, only the delegates who attend a convention can constrain a convention.”
FINALLY! We agree on something. Unfortunately for you, it blows your whole, “we can constrain an Article V convention” argument out of the water. There is no intruction or oath you could write that could prevent the delegates from doing what they wanted once they get to the convention.
Let’s see if this comment gets deleted FOR THE SECOND TIME.
I”ve copy/pasted it here, as a reply, because every time I comment with something truly and obviously devastating to the fictional narrative put forward by the “COS” con men, well, if I enter it at the top of this thread as a new comment, it gets picked up and deleted by either Rita or someone in charge of this website. Only supportive comments or ones which disagree but on points that they are capable of debating, and for which they already have ready-made lies to falsely “refute” that comment. Any time a new comment appears which is so blatantly and obviously true and easily provable in its refutation of one of the contentions asserted by the “COS” leadership in its fictional re-write of US history, IT PROMPTLY GETS DELETED. So. . . I’m hoping at least SOMEONE will see this if I put it down here as a reply to a prior comment.
it’s a 3 minute video taken by a vid-cam which was inadvertently left on. It records
the TWO PAID LOBBYISTS FOR THE “COS” PROJECT CONTRADICTING THE COS
PROJECT’S OWN CLAIMS IN ORDER TO EXTORT THE COOPERATION OF A NEVADA
STATE LEGISLATOR IN SUPPORTING THE COS.
It’s the COS movement’s claim that an Article V cnvention’s voting will be 1 vote for each state.
There
is NOTHING ANYWHERE to justify this fabricated claim. They keep
telling the same lie until people believe it. NO ONE can know in
advance what will be the voting procedure decided upon.
HOWEVER,
these 2 PAID PROFESSIONAL LOBBYISTS are trying to work on this Nevada
state legislator to help push his state’s legislature to apply to
Congress for an Article V convention. Listen. They are claiming that
Nevada will not have much say at the convention if they are not one of
the states who requested it in the first place. LYING ABOUT THEIR OWN
LIE in order to motivate (extort) and manipulate the behavior of a
state legislator.
What kind of dishonest, crooked, charlatan scum
would be involved in a program to achieve their means by deception?
ANSWER: The same kind who are deceiving countless conservatives about
the “COS” with their 100% FICTIONAL narrative of US history which bears
no relation to the facts.
The video speaks for itself
— assuming it’s not deleted AGAIN from this thread, where several
PROOFS of that the COS Project’s version of history and of Article V’s
meaning falsehood have been censored by deletion.
PLEASE
check every”fact,” quote, and assertion YOURSELF at the original source
or you will become a “useful idiot” supporting our worst enemies, and
slitting your own throat, as well as the throats of you children,
grandchildren and other loved ones.
ALSO CONSIDER THIS:
In her article, Rita Dunaway states that
” . . . the 1787 Constitutional Convention was not called pursuant to some
provision of the Articles of Confederation. It was called by the states,
as individual sovereigns, for the very purpose of ‘render[ing] the
Federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union.’ ”
This is not true.
She
claims to have a “background in Constitutional Law” and to have
researched, for over a year, the law and history of Article V. Either
she does not know the difference between “calling for” a convention and
“calling” a convention, OR . . . fill in the blank yourself.
After the ineffective convention of 1786
which WAS called by a few states, several states called FOR another
convention. Some of them asked the Continental Congress to call one.
It did, in February of 1787.
Anyone can “call for” anything.
When someone says “There oughta be a law . . . ” they are “calling for”
a law about whatever it is they’d like to see. They are expressing a
WISH or REQUEST that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE (or someone or some particular
entity) DO SOMETHING. The person or people or institution which
ACTUALLY BEGINS THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT SOMETHING, BY GALVANIZING THE
PROCESS WHICH CREATES IT AND TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTUALLY DOING
IT, who brings together the necessary people and conditions which CREATE
the event itself, are who “called” it.
The states called the
FAILED 1786 convention. Because it failed, they called FOR another one
and requested the Continental Congress to call it. The Continental
Congress called one for the “sole and express purpose” of proposing
changes to the Constitution (our first constitution, the Articles of
Confederation). They set a date (May 2, 1787), the place
(Philadelophia) and the states sent delegates to it (except for Rhode
Island).
Ms Dunaway relies on a complete irrelevancy to create a
non-existent difference between that convention and the one she would
like to see today under Article V. Because the Articles of
Convention did not have a specific clause like Article V in it, that
makes them different. That’s patently ridiculous, on its face.
The
Congress is the legislature, the law making body. It was the creation
of the states when they drew up the Articles of Confederation just as
our current congress is the creation of the states who send delegates to
the 1787 convention.
Article V provides two PROCEDURES
describing HOW amendments to the Cnstitution may be made, and one of
them MIMICS ALMOST TO A TEE THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE CONTINENTAL
CONGRESS CALLED THE 1787 CONVENTION.
No one can stop anyone from
calling a Constitutional Convention anyway. It is our right, under the
Declaration of INdependence, to alter or even abolish our government if
we choose. Anyone can exercise his right to freedom of speech and
freedom of assembly to call for and/or to call (actually arrange for) a
meeting, conference or convention to discuss or propose changes to their
government. And whatever reason they first decide to have such a
convention, they are free to come up with any ideas or proposals their
hearts desire.
This has been affirmed by expert after expert
throughout US history. A convention is the expression of people who
are being governed, and THEY are the repository and source of ALL
rights. A convention is acknowledged (by those who themselves are
acknowledged by history as the greatest constitutional experts of
history) as THE HIGHEST law making body of all, higher even than the
constitution under which it might (or might not) be called.
The
acknowledged authority of the time was Black’s Law Dictionary, which
defines a CONSTITUTIONAL Convention as any convention called for or
called by any government branch or body whose purpose is to examine or
suggest or propose any changes whatsoever to a current constitution.
“ANY” is in front of every act and person or entity involved. It’s
simple English: a CONSTITUTIONAL convention is ANY convention that
deals wsith ANY aspect of the constitution. If it deals with some
aspect of the Constitution, it’s a Constitutional Convention. Simple.
Article V’s second of two described procedures involves a
convention which CONGRESS “shall call,” just as the Continental Congress
called the 1787 convention.
Rita is trying to have it both
ways. She claims that the 1787 convention was called by the states.
Can you believe it? She calls an Article V convention a “COS” or
“convention of states” which NO ONE HAS EVER CALLED IT BEFORE IN US
HISTORY until very recently, and says that IT is different from the 1787
“con con,” and then in another context, she makes a very emphatic
insistence on the importance of the fact that the 1787 convention WAS
CALLED BY THE STATES!!
We have an Article V which explicitly
says that upon REQUEST of enough states (ie, their “applications” to
congress) the CONGRESS “shall” then be obliged to call a convention.
IE,
ARticle V, which gives CONGRESS the power to call the convention, is a
“Convention of States” according to RITA. But she emphasizes elsewhere
that this is totally different from the 1787 constitutional convention,
because THAT convention was CALLED BY THE STATES. But it was NOT a
“convention of states” even though all its delegates were indeed
selected by the individual states. Meanwhile, an Article V convention,
which is EXPLICITLY to be called by Congress, is according to Rita a
“Convention of States.”
NOW do you understand how frustrating
it is to deal with the “cos” advocates who are twisting words to such
impossible and preposterous extremes to make a case that is equally
preposterous and absurd — and capitalizing on the lack of knowledge of
history of many people to convince them of something that is patently
untrue?
Just recently the Assembly of State Legislatures met in
Washington DC and notes from their meeting show that in preparing for a
possible Artricle V convention, they wish it to have delegates drawn
from our House, Senate, and include also federal Judges.
Rita
and the COS leadership keep telling us that it will be the state
legislatures who control the Article V convention. But we now find out
that the Assembly of State Legislators wants federal judges and members
of CONGRESS to be delegates to that convention.
We told you so. The COS pushers are not being honest – to put it very politely.
They
deny that the 1787 Convention is a precedent for a modern Article V
cnvention because it was a “runaway” convention and an Article V
convention CAN’T be, since it will be controlled by the states.
Yet
we now see that, as WE told you many times, there is NOTHING in Article
V’s language saying that, and in fact Art V explicitly gives CONGRESS
the EXCLUSIVE authority to call (arrange the details of) an Article V
convention. Meanwhile, they deny that Congress called the 1787
convention when it most certainly DID do so, but the Continental
congress — in specifying the details — told the states to choose the
delegates, which they did do. Yet it was NOT a “convention of states”
according to Rita while an Article V convention IS, even though we find
that the Assembly of State Legislators is acting on the assumption that
CONGRESS will call the Article V convention too, JUST AS THE 1787
CONVENTION WAS CALLED, but this time, the state legislators are planning
to ALLOW MEMBERS OF OUR CORRUPT CONGRESS TO BE DELEGATES TO IT, AS WELL
AS FEDERAL JUDGES!!
In short, just about everything the COS
pushers say is untrue. They made up the idea of a “conventin of states”
and intentionally confused and misinterpreted history to create their
fictional narrative. The truth is that, if anything, it was the 1787
convention that was FAR closer to what these people describe as a
“convention of states” than an article V convention would be!!
If
an ARricle V convention is called, then BOTH it AND the 1787 Convention
will have been called by Congress. The 1787 Convention’s delegates
WERE chosen by the states because Congress told them to select the
delegates for teh convention Congress was calling. The ARticle V
convention WILL HAVE DELEGATES FROM CONGRESS AND THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY,
it now appears, and WE have warned that this was possible all along,
while the COS leadership has denied its possibility. Meanwhile, it
wsa teh 1787 Convention that was told it wsa being called “solely and
expressly” for the purpose of recommending amendments and changes to our
1st constituion (the Articles of Confederation were our 1st
Constitution). But Artricle V, while it does say that it is providing
the procedure for amendments, does NOT say so anywhere near as
emphatically as the congressional mandate to the 1787 delegate, that
that was SOLELY AND EXPRESSLY the purpose of their mission at the
convention.
Yet the COS leadership tells us that was a “con con”
and Article V is oh, so different, when in fact all the assurances they
give about Article V, and the way they describe it, APPLY MORE TO THE
1787 CONVENTION which they call a “con con” and deny it was a “cos” even
though it has far more characteristics of what tehy define as a “cos”
then their own “cos” does!!!
SUMMARY
So the one she claims was called by the states was not, and the one she claims is being called by the states is not.
She and the COS leaders say the 1787 Convention was called by the states, but it was called by the Continental Congress.
She and the COS leaders say that an ARticle V convention is one called by the states, but it will be called by Congress.
She
and the COS leaders say that the states will control the Art V
convention but we now have PROOF IN HAND that it will not be, since even
the state legislators want federal judges and members of our corrupt
congress to be delegates.
She and the COS leaders say that the
1787 convention was NOT a “convention of states” even though all the
delegates WERE selected by the states (because congress told them to do
the choosing).
She and the COS leaders describe all the above as
things which give us protection from a “runaway” convention, like the
1787 convention, but AN ART V CONVENTION IN FACT DOES NOT HAVE THESE
PROTECTIONS, AND IN FACT THE 1787 HAD MORE OF THEM THAN AN ARTICLE V
CONVENTION WOULD.
She and the COS leaders call the 1787
convention a “con con” and say that this is oh, so differfent from a
“convention of states” based on a completely irrelevant minor
difference. The say that the 1787 convention was NOT a “convention of
states” even though all its delegates were teh selections of their
individual states. They say that an Article V convention IS a
“convention of states” even though in fact its delegates will be
selected in a manner that our corrupt CONGRESS chooses, and which even
many state legislators are ALREADY saying they wish to include federal
judges AND MEMBERS OF OUR CURRUPT CONGRESS as delegates to.
She
and the COS leaders say IN ANOTHER CONTEXT (see the early part of
Rita’s own blog above) that the 1787 convention was called by the states
(it was NOT), but then elsewhere deny that it was a convention of
states, even though they’ve said it was called by the states, and even
though its delegates were selected by the states.
Meanwhile
they call and Art V convention a “Conventin of States” even though it
will be called by Congress and its delegates, it now appears to be
CERTAIN, will include members of our corrupt congress and federal judges
— as WE, the opposition to these charlatans, have told you all along.
There is MUCH more to say but I’ll rest my case here for the time being.
Your question is based in the false notion that the States were never sovereign, and that the ends justify the means, even if they defy the clear words of the agreement between sovereigns. Article 13 makes clear that “the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State” and goes on to specify how alterations could be made. Rhode Island refused to attend the convention, ensuring there would be no unanimity. Anticipating from the start that they could not force an illegal Constitution upon the States, Madison & his cohorts simply pretended the Articles of Confederation didn’t exist. They destroyed the Perpetual Union & pushed all objectors out. Instead of requiring 13 States to ratify, they went with 9 (but would have happily gone with 7 if the Anti-federalists had not prevented it.) The oath of secrecy ensured that delegates could not communicate this evil to their States (as they were also instructed,) and therefore no one back home would learn about the tricks they were playing until it was too late. This is exactly why PA ratified 2nd before their Anti-federalists were even able to publish their objections. Similarly, MD ratified without even letting their Anti-federalists present their objections and recommended NO amendments. This is EXACTLY the type of evil, underhanded gamesmanship you will see in a COS. I find it impossible to believe that knowing what you do, you were ever against this, as your arguments entirely ignore all the facts that forced an illegal act upon the States 228 years ago, and today you are supporting an effort to do the same again. You don’t care how you achieve it. You don’t even care how things may go awry. Like Madison & Hamilton, you are single-mindedly pursuing this option rather than considering other options (such as pushing amendments through Congress, which is how Michael Farris is pursuing Parental Rights, go figure!) You don’t care what it does to those of us who are warning you to stop, because in your mind, the ENDS justify the MEANS.
They did not exceed their powers. They exceeded their instructions. But they had every right to do what they did for two general reasons, which are really two sides of the same coin. But first: note that having exceeded their instructions, they still would have gotten nowhere if the states had not been receptive to what they actually did. Here are the two reasons they did NOT exceed their power:
1. Conventions are THE highest law making body. They can even decide to make major changes to the legal body or authority which called the convention. They are the voice of the people, or rather the people’s appointed or elected representatives, and the people are the original repository and source of all rights. Natch they can’t force what they’ve done in that capacity onto the people if they object, but PROPOSING anyting they wish to propose is within their legally proper power.
2. Any convention can approfe anything it wishes regardless of its mandated purpose. No convention can be contrained. It’s part of the nature of a convention. A convention is a group of people discussing things, making recomendatins, polling its members’ opinions or voting on things, etc. So . . . go read the 1st amendment. No one can infringe on anyone’s freedom of speecH, NOR anyone’s right to assemble peacefully with whomever he chooses to assemble with.
As long as it’s peaceful/non-violent, WHATEVER a convention might decide, there is no law prohibiting the making of that decision. And there is no agency of gov’t with the power to bring legal action against its members or delegates for speaking their minds, making proposals, etc.
What this means is that all the arguments about the potential for a runaway convention under these or those circumstances, are really just hot air. If “runaway” means disregard for the mandate the convention was given by the legal authority which called the convention, then every convention is sinherently a potential “runaway,” and there is NO getting around that, unless we repeal the first amendment. Even that might not work because the convention could simply use a “de facto” form of the equivalent of nullification. The orders or mandate of the calling authority is not a LAW so vioilation of it is not criminal, nor is any civil damage done unless the delegates were paid, in which case I suppose the authority who called the convention for a purpose it did not pursue might have standing to sue for a return of its payments to the delegates. That’s about the most severe “punishment” I can imagine unless/until we’re in circumstances where the authority which called the convention was a full blown dictator — but a dictator is unlikely to call a convention!!
From a very practical viewpoint, just put yourself in the shoes of a delegate. You’re there to propose ideas for, say, strhengthening national defense. You comed up with a great related idea on procurement that would apply to all things the gov’t purchases, which ought to improve quality, lower costs, and reduce maintenance expenses. When you are recognized to speak and you say “this may be a bit off topic but ;. . .” and present your brilliant idea that will serve the nation’s interests so well, who in the world would want to shut you up — and more relevant: who in the world has the legal right to tell you to shut up except perhaps the man with the gavel who might rule you out of order. Well now, if it’s OK to do THAT, how could you possibly argue against your standing up just to make an observation or comment. It may be a useless waste of everyone’s time but you think it’s worthwhile. Who is to censor your freedom of speech, other than the gavel on the basis of the rules of order, IF you have violated them. And if there is soemthing you want to do, like abolish the current constitution, and if 75% of the other delegates agree wholeheartedly with that, well . . .even the gavel becomes no threat of interference.
I have a feeling the founders probably understood this very well, though I’ve never seen this specific perspective on it elsewhere, or from any of the founders. They talk of “plenipotentiary powers” of a convention, but don’t boil it down to the simple “inalienable rights” of indivuduals per the Declaration. True, speech and peaceful assembly are not specifically mentioned in the Declaration, but you can derive them from the fundamental rights the Declaration does put forward, by showing that deprivation or infringement of free speech or assembly would involve a contradiction to one or more of the basic inalienable rights which is/are mentioned by the Declaration.
Aside from court decision reversals, there ARE other methods. Even the Supreme Court has usurped powers it does not constitutionally possess. They have superimposed their views on their decisions, rather than on what the Constitution says, very clearly and simply.
We need to get a small but determined minority to do things like regulary call their elected officials at local, state, and federal levels asking what their specific plans are for getting us back on the original Constitutional track. Asked at town hall meetings during congressinal recess periods, it might becme contagious if you ask the right way and point out a few brief but important things. What’s a congressman or senator goling to do if he starts finding that at every such meeting, at speeches, at public events, etc, he is frequently being asked what his specific plan is for keeping his oath of office. Where does he plan to begin if/when re-elected? ETc. He’ll probably be shocked the first few times, but if the pressure can be kept on, he’ll have to start making that one of his term’s focuses.
I also believe that the longest journey begins with a single step, and I think Thomas Jefferson was right that nullification is a very powerful and effective tool. We just don’t use it. Americans are abjectly ignorant about their own form of government. Nullificatin is extremely low risk and on the infrequent occasions when it’s used, it’s very often very effective. Look at what happened in Nevada last year at the Bundy ranch. Look at what just happened later last year in CT, NY, and other eastern states that passed the SAFE act (NY) and other similar ones in the other states. I know the figure in CT was 85% non-compliance with a law that carried a FELONY penatly for same. And it was not silent non-compliance but BRAZEN. Open demonstratins by people who unhesitatingly gave their names and basically said “I’m an American and this is America. I have my rights. Get off my back or i’m prepared to throw you off if you don’t.” So far, ZERO enforcement action or threat thereof, in any of the states. I don’t know the figure for NY state, but I’ve heard it was a mite HIGHER than CT’s.
Success is another thing that feeds on itself. If more people got behind this, educated people to their “sovereignty” over their own lives per the Declaration of Independence, I think it COULD take hold and become a way of life — one that INCREASINGLY becomes a way of life. Piecemeal eating away at unconstitutional laws.
Small potatoes I know. But again, that small first step . . . might get us somewhere in a few such areas. Every success would plant lots of seeds in people’s minds, and there’s a :LOT of dissatisfaction in MANY areas to which those seeds might be transplanted.
Morry,
I wish there were time for “small steps.” Unfortunately, I believe there is not. When will the collapse of the debt bubble occur? No one knows, but it will not be much longer. Meanwhile we are dithering over to employ a method the Framers gave us for precisely the situation we now face – Congress will not act to fix things. The time for hoping and praying that something will change is past.
Nullification is, at best, a holding action; it changes nothing permanently. The “nullified” law remains on the books awaiting a change in the state legislature to reverse the nullification. Nullification is a one-state, one-law-at-a-time action. How many unconstitutional federal actions deserve nullification? Thousands, and you need to find a new majority for each one because not every cause enjoys support from the same people. Please don’t think that nullification is going to magically cure 200+ years of power-expanding Supreme Court decisions.
The federal government is legally entitled, by our system of government (not that I agree with it) to act in accorcance with the 3000 pages of Supreme Court interpretations found in “U.S. Constitution, Analysis and Interpretation” (google it), and nothing you nor I do will ever convince to act otherwise.
Your “small potatoes” might seem safe, but they will get us nowhere. There is no plan to systematically identify and elect strict Constitutionalists. There is no plan to systematically educate the American people. There isn’t even a plan to systematically nullify federal laws. Each one of these worth goals is being approached piecemeal by pockets of patriots without any coordination, integration, or real effect.
The time for hoping and wishing something will change is long gone.
Then why isn’t Farris using all the time and energy (and who knows how much money) he’s wasting on this CoS pipe-dream on helping these “pockets of patriots” instead? Levin has already said the entire process of “Liberty Amendments” will take decades.
The Tenth Amendment Center is tracking over 200 nullification bills, just for this year, in state legislatures all across the country. (And, by the way, your point about nullification not being a permanent solution – what do you think killed slavery and Jim Crow?)
I may be naive, but I think the Civil War killed slavery.
You must be naive, then. History refutes you utterly – Federal Fugitive Slave Acts vs. Northern States’ Personal Liberty Laws. Which one prevailed?
Gary you are repeating clever lawyer rhetoric and doublespeak. To say that congress obeys the Supreme Court rulings – is backward. The Supreme Court has ‘legalized’ congressional and executive expansion of powers – the Supreme Court has legalized constitutional violation.
What is posing as federal government actually obeys ‘public opinion’ which at the moment is so quiet and dumbed down it’s like a classroom of juvenile delinquents with no teacher. Public opinion is the key to market and politics – which is why so much energy is spent influencing it.
To think you can change politics without changing the real power that influences it (public opinion) is not understanding the principles of free government; which is in essence, that all political power is derived from the consent of the people. If the people are ignorant, that is consent. The government derives its power (albeit unlawful) from the ignorance of the people / just as government derives its JUST powers from the informed consent of the governed.
Anna,
I’m not a lawyer nor do I play on on TV. I am not creating a fantasy, I’m just expressing rality. The Commerce Clause takes about 5 second to recite out loud. Yet the “U.S.Constitution, Analysis and Interpretation,” the “official” Constitution that Congress is legally entitled to follow, takes 150 pages to explan all the powers that Congress has been given under the Commerce Clause. How do you intend to reverse that? By electing “better” representatives? The American people are clueless about this fact and I can’t teach them fast enough. How many Americans did you teach last month?
If people like you would support my classes and I could teach 50-100 at a time we might begin to make a dent, a very small dent, in the education void. But I’m realistic enough to see that I’m rowing upstream.
Read my essay in Fairfax Free Citizen and tell me where I’m wrong.
Gary
I’ll stop thinking about the Article V amendment process when the educate and elect process starts working.
So you don’t have faith in an informed electorate? Ask yourself how this plan would work in the absence of one.
You won’t admit that your plan is not working. Tell me when whe’re going to see results from your plan? And tell he how long is it going to take to educate, elect, and roll back 100 years off bad law and Supreme Court decisions? Guess what – we don’t have that much time. I will support anything that I believe will work. Many of these posts are the equivalent of arguing how many fairys can dance on the head of a pin – utter folderol.
In the end – the federal government is a creature of the collective states. Only the states will be able to change our downward trajectory.
I disagree. History is not made by the majority, who are sheep. It’s made by determined minorities. The 1/3 who were behind the founders was HUGE and that’s why they succeeded.
The states will be harder than the people, and cannot be won over without first winning over the people. Who is going to elect the government officials of the states? HOW can you POSSIBLY make any headway that’s even semi-permanent at the state level, if the state’s voters are ignored? If you’re lucky, you’ll make some headway and then be all the way back to square 1 — or worse for having let things continue unchecked amongst the general populace — when the next election comes around.
Educating hte people has the advantage that one who’s become educated will influence many around him, and those affected will in turn do the same. Also, convincing a person or teaching him somehting is a ratchet in the right direction that will not slide back, and can later be ratcheted upward still further — or he can do some of that on his own.
You’d be surprised what a difference a day can make.
This is a different kind of battle from the typical political one. There has been an effect, a huge one. We had gotten close to 34 states — within a couple — and thing looked pretty dire a short while back. However, several states havde now rescinded their previous applications to Congress.
You have to realize this is a “dynamic” process. Before we can reverse the direction, the first effects are just the slowing of our opposition’s advance. I thinik there’s lots of evidence that’s already happening. On the issue of Article V, the tide is turning.
When bad guys act, the good guys then REACT, with a delay. And even when the good guys are succeeding, in the first stages the bad guys keep advancing because the good guys have so far only done enough to slow their progress . Slowing their progress for a while usually means it will soon be slowing at an even more rapid pace until finally their progress halts, and then begins to regress..
Things will surely get worse before they get better. But as much as we are on the defensive, still, our rate of advance is faster than the “peaked out” lefties who have thrown everything they have into this battle. They’ve got their pedal to the metal. We still have reserves of people to r ecruit to our side and I think general sentiment in a large portion of the population is slowly miving in our directin the longer our nation’s problems remain unaddressed, because they will continue to worsen. The “backlash” from that will send a few more into activism on our side eery day.
No guarantees, but if you do nothing, nothing will result from it. We can only do the best we can, and we should try to do that. We can’t eliminate the fact that our nation has accumulated terrific problems over a long period, but there IS definitel a resurgence of interest by Americans in their constitution and their government and how it should be run. We may not win the war anytime very soon, but if we can keep moving in the right direction, success will feed on itself.
I don’t think we should place our hopes in the states. Too many Repub states are primarily RINO red, and too many have razor thin Repub majorities in their legislatures. And of course, many of those Repubs in the legislatures are RINOs. All 50 states get Federal money thru grants, subsidies, matching funds, etc etc. The amounts, as a percent of each state’s total gov’t spending, range from around 20% to arond 45%. We have already seen several examples of conservative states caving into to Federal pressure via threats to re-assess the funding given to the state if they do not support the latest Federal plans and programs. Why do they do this? Because if they don’t bring home the DC bacon, either state programs will need to be cut, OR taxes raised. That means no re-election. And. . . THAT means the problem ultimately lies with the voters. We need to get a few of them to realize they need to start doing things like the just-below:
Most people are not active in politics but passively accept what’s handed to them. If we can convnice even a small percentage of people to start calling their state or federal elected officials on a regular basis to ask “what is your plan for living up to you oath of office and getting us back on track withj the Consgtitution?” — and if we ask the same Qs of our DC reps at town hall meetings during congressional recesses, the message may come thru or start coming thru that the natives are restless and what a growing number of them want is NOT more food stamps, but a return to the Constitution — something which hasn’t been heard in a LONG time. Also, I think we are REALLY close, if not past, the time when a 3rd party will be viable, if liberty-minded people are unable to dominate the Republican Party.
I’m not trying to be a Pollyanna, but people ARE looking for change. They’ve tried the left and I am convinced that the century long trend of increasing acceptance of statism has peaked and is in decline, while the ideas of freedom and individual rights are now gaining ground. There’s nothing wrong with working on your state legislators too, but the problem is our cultural changes in attitude toward gov’t and without a change there, there’s no hope for a lasting change. So my view is to work on educating people and when a crisis or impoirtant issue arises at the state or federal or local level, if you can do something, do it, and then get back to educating. Keep working on the new dyke, but be ever-ready to stick your fingers in any holes that break out in the old one until the new one is . . . someday …. finished. What else can we do?
Please explain your plan for educating the people in sufficient numbers to make a difference at the polls. Who is assigned to teach the classes? How many classes will it take? How many students per class? When and where will these classes be scheduled? By whom? How do you intend to convince citizens to turn off DWTS and come to a Constitution class?
You see, there is no plan. There never will be a plan. There is only a hope, a wish, a prayer, that the people “wake up.” The people may indeed wake up one day, but it will be because the SHTF. When that happens there will be a hue and cry for a brand new Constitution because the old one has clearly let us down. Then you will have lost it all and you will wonder – where did we go wrong?
If the Virginia legislature were to pass legislation recommending that every high school graduate studied the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and would have to pass a test in order to graduate, then require all elected officials to pass that same test, the political ideology would shift substantially. If Virginia were also to promote constitutional education over public broadcasting and create contests, online games and events involving early American history and constitutional knowledge – we’d see another shift.
Public opinion is true political power. If it were not, the mainstream and education system wouldn’t be so intent and spend so much time and money attempting to influence public opinion.
We’ll find that public opinion is the real power of market, politics and education. Without an informed public opinion, we’re at the mercy of tyrants, criminals and worse.
“No nation however powerful, any more than an
individual, can be unjust with impunity.
Sooner or later, public opinion, an instrument merely moral in the beginning, will find occasion physically to inflict its sentences on the unjust… The lesson is useful to the weak as well as the strong.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1804.
Anna,
You are absolutley right about the power of public opinion; and absolutly naive to think that there is a plan to change it or a plan to make the legislative changes your suggest. That’s the problem with those opposed to an Article V convention, great ideas; no organization to bring them about.
When will “public opinion” catch up to your way of thinking when we pump out 3 million little socialsts from our high schools each June? When will public opinion catch up to your way of thinking when I have only a handful of 60-year olds take the time to come to my classes (and I know of not one other person in Tidewater who is teaching the Founders Constitution)?
One thing is for sure, public opinion is going to demand a change in our government once the debt bubble bursts and inflicts wide-spread commercial calamity on us all. My fear is that that event will produce a demand for a Constitutional Convention, not in accordance with Article 5 but rather in the mode of 1787. And then no one will be able to prevent the drafting of a wholesale replacement of the document.
If we do not show that small, measured and prudent changes can be made via Article 5 before the SHTF event, we are going to get a brand new Constitution thrust upon us. That’s my fear.
Without an informed electorate, hope for true change is not possible. To open up the Constitution for amendment; is at best a band-aid on a life threatening wound (ignoring the constitution is the true fatal wound). At worse, opening up the Constitution amendment through the Article V convention provision would render it open for rewrite and legal obliteration.
I’d rather leave our Constitution intact for future generations of enlightened Americans than to risk ‘clarifying language’ by unknown delegates in an unknowable convention with an unknowable outcome supported by an ignorant populace.
There are too many factors that will ultimately left in the hands of Congress – that is, if those that push for this convention follow Article V.
The COS supporters are in a fix. If they follow the Article V provisions they invite Congress to be involved. if they don’t want Congressional involvement they write their own rules and are pushing for something without legal precedent.
COS supporters are damned if they do follow the rules and we’re damned if they don’t.
Unless the naysayers can come up with a better plan, one that’s actually a real, honest-to-goodness plan and not a wish or a hope or a plead, we’re all damned.
this conversation and controversy – is actually what we need. People engaged and people learning from one another. Our elected officials are learning more about the constitution from this debate than any other debate. This debate will help create curiosity (and hopefully a little guilt) (“just what does the constitution say anyway?”) will help all involved learn more, embrace more and, I hope, insist on enforcement rather that amending to bring about change. The constitution is not the problem, the problem is constitutional ignorance.
I agree some good will come of this despite the outcome – this year. I just don’t look forward to doing this yet again next season.
Very astute observations, very well presented. There is no question about your comment being 100% correct.
Let’s see if this comment gets deleted A SECOND TIME.
it’s a 3 minute
video taken by a vid-cam which was inadvertently left on. It records
the TWO PAID LOBBYISTS FOR THE “COS” PROJECT CONTRADICTING THE COS
PROJECT’S OWN CLAIMS IN ORDER TO EXTORT THE COOPERATION OF A NEVADA
STATE LEGISLATOR IN SUPPORTING THE COS.
It’s the COS movement’s claim that an Article V cnvention’s voting will be 1 vote for each state.
There
is NOTHING ANYWHERE to justify this fabricated claim. They keep
telling the same lie until people believe it. NO ONE can know in
advance what will be the voting procedure decided upon.
HOWEVER,
these 2 PAID PROFESSIONAL LOBBYISTS are trying to work on this Nevada
state legislator to help push his state’s legislature to apply to
Congress for an Article V convention. Listen. They are claiming that
Nevada will not have much say at the convention if they are not one of
the states who requested it in the first place. LYING ABOUT THEIR OWN
LIE in order to motivate (extort) and manipulate the behavior of a
state legislator.
What kind of dishonest, crooked, charlatan scum
would be involved in a program to achieve their means by deception?
ANSWER: The same kind who are deceiving countless conservatives about
the “COS” with their 100% FICTIONAL narrative of US history which bears
no relation to the facts.
The video speaks for itself
— assuming it’s not deleted AGAIN from this thread, where several
PROOFS of that the COS Project’s version of history and of Article V’s
meaning falsehood have been censored by deletion.
PLEASE
check every”fact,” quote, and assertion YOURSELF at the original source
or you will become a “useful idiot” supporting our worst enemies, and
slitting your own throat, as well as the throats of you children,
grandchildren and other loved ones.
The polls won’t matter. It’s not a ballot issue. It’s a convention, not a state election. It works much differently than you are thinking. Please educate yourself.
A good read, and well written…even if it is purely teleological dogma.
All well said Morry.
The author of the article has apparently removed my post here which
reported on a new development which FACTUALLY proves the “COS” position
100% wrong with 100% certainty. This is typical behavior from the “COS”
people. When something they cannot refute is posted, or something very
very convincing is posted on their site, in a thread on FB, or a comment
after an article like this one, or a website, they simply delete it.
It’s the SECOND TIME I have tried to have important factual info posted
here, only to see it disappear within hours.
My post here
yesterday is the second one which has been deleted. If this site is like
others, when a guest author’s article is published, the author does not
have authority to permanently ban a person, as many “COS” sites are
infamous for doing to knowledgeable adversaries at their own sites, BUT
the author is empowered to delete specific comments.
You know that
the COS position is that the states will run the convention and send
their own delegates there, presumably from their own legislatures. This
is obviously false from the language of Article V but the “COS”
propaganda refers to historical precedent — very erroneously and
falsely spun BTW — and the precedent would NOT be binding anyway even
if true, which it isn’t — and furthermore until the recent advent of
the latest push for an Article V convention, everyone in US history
understood that under Article V it would be CONGRESS who determines the
nature of the convention, choosing its time and place and the method of
delegate selection, etc. (That’s what Article V says in very simple,
obvious, straightforward language, ie that Congress “shall call” the
convention.) But the “COS” people just disregard this and come up with a
false rigamarole allegedly showing that the convention will be run by
the states WHICH HAS NOW ALSO BEEN PROVEN FALSE AGAIN, BUT THIS TIME BY
ACTUAL PREPARATORY ACTIONS FOR THE CONVENTION, TAKEN BY THE STATES, WHO
THEMSELVES ARE ALMOST AS CORRUPT AS CONGRESS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOLD
THEIR SOULS FOR A MESS OF FEDERAL POTTAGE. The proof is this:
Below
is an excerpt from a letter sent to his constituents by Virginia State
Senator Richard Black (sent also to all voters in the State and to
others around the nation). You can access the FULL letter here, and I
strongly recommend you do:
http://secure.campaigner.com/C…
I
STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU READ HIS ENTIRE LETTER AT THE LINK JUST ABOVE, but
here’s the excerpt from it regarding the notes he had ONLY RECENTLY
obtained from a meeting of 50 STATE LEGISLATORS which took place in
Washington DC on Dec 9 to discuss to make early plans for an Article V
convention. The excerpt from the Senator’s letter is between the two
lines of asterisks:
**********************************************************************************
Planners Are Already Moving to Loosen Restraints on the Scope of a Convention:
“Assembly of STATE Legislatures” is a group of legislators planning the Article V
Convention. About FIFTY state legislators met December 9, 2014 in
Washington DC. Notes from this meeting show that (these STATE) lawmakers
1
TABLED a motion to restrict the scope of the Convention to only the subject
matter of the state applications, and also
2
REJECTED
a motion which would have prevented congressmen and senators, federal
judges and governors from serving as delegates to the Convention.
This is an early indication that (EVEN STATE) politicians want to have a more open process and may
want to appoint members of Congress, the US Senate and federal judges to amend the Constitution.
*********************************************************************************
This
proves that even state legislators intend to open up the convention
exactly as everyone has known would happen for 200 years until the most
recently revived push for an Article V convention by the left and a few
unwitting conservatives who have fallen for their FICTIONAL NARRATIVE
ABOUT IT BEING STRICTLY A “CONVENTION OF STATES” — a term used only
loosely once or twice in history to describe what everyone understood to
be a constitutional convention, and which is defined as one in Black’s
Law Dictionary of that era.
The COS position has been that this
convention’s topics would be restricted SOLELY to a few specific
amendments proposed to Congress by the States. During ALL of US history
prior to the very recent advent of The COS Project and other recently
activated groups pushing for an Article V convention, IT HAS BEEN AN
UNQUESTIONED GIVEN that Congress, NOT the states, would control the
selection of delegates, and that such a convention CANNOT be restrained
from considering anything it wishes to consider, even to proposing the
abolition of our current constitution and its replacement with an
entirely new one.
As you see from the above, EVEN STATE LEGISLATORS want people OTHER THAN THEMSELVES to be delegates.
Amongst
MANY other contradictions with the universally accepted views by all
experts of the past 200+ years which the new “COS” re-write of history
claims are true, are these two:
1. The states will control the convention
2.
The convention’s scope will be strictly limited to the amendments the
states had proposed for it in their applications to congress for the
Convention.
From the above, we now see that both of these are 100%
FALSE, as I and countless others have tried to explain to those who are
still under the sway of the false narrative manufactured by the “COS”
advocates via distortion, out-of-context quoting, bald faced untruths,
and false “spin.”
Note that in a private meeting of 50 STATE
LEGISLATORS in Washington DC, where they were preparing what they wish
to do if asked by Congress or permitted by Congress to have a say in
constructing the convention, even the NATIONAL GROUP “The Assembly of
STATE Legislators” wish the convention to have an open agenda, AND they
wish to push for having FEDERAL CONGRESSMEN, SENATORS, AND JUDGES
INCLUDED AS DELEGATES TO THE CONVENTION.
They, too understand the
truth, 100% consistent with the simple language of Article V which gives
the states only TWO powers w/regard to this convention option:
1. To force Congress to call a convention and
2.
To ratify its output ASSUMING THE CONVENTION ITSELF DOES NOT CHANGE THE
RATIFICATION PROCEDURE WHICH IT HAS THE UNQUESTIONABLE AUTHORITY TO DO.
Why
don’t you read the opinions of the Framers as they gave it themselves,
in context, in COUNTLESS places and just TRY to find, ANYWHERE IN THE
200+ YEARS AFTER 1787, an explanation of Article V that even remotely
agrees with the claims of the very recent “COS” movement’s revival of
this topic? YOU CANNOT BECAUSE IT IS COMPLETELY WRONG AND FALSE and thus
there EXISTS no historical confirmation of their view of an Article V
convention. NO ONE before in all US history has EVER made the false
claims for an Article V convention which the current “COS” movement
makes for it. From the founders themselves onward, EVERYONE has
understood the unquestionable view which contradicts the spin the “COS”
movement has put on the nature of this convention
Here we now have
the Assembly of STATE Legislators discussing what THEY wish if the
convention is called, and it is EXACTLY WHAT THE “COS” LEADERSHIP HAS
BEEN TELLING YOU CANNOT HAPPEN. They want FEDERAL JUDGES and also
MEMBERS OF OUR CORRUPT CONGRESS to be delegates to the convention. So . .
. EVEN IF THE “COS” LEADERSHIP WERE RIGHT — which it most definitely
is NOT — we see that the corrupted state governments would still choose
to do exactly what the “COS” leadership says they will not do.
All
50 states get funding of one sort or another from the Fed Gov, and it
ranges from about 20% to 45% of each state’s total spending. Elected
state officials, including the Governors and the state legislators, have
thus sold their souls — and the rights of their citizens — for a mess
of pottage. There have been numerous cases of state legislatures and/or
Governors talking big about stopping Fed intrusion into education,
overly burdensome environmental mandates, etc etc, then caving in and
not doing anything about them. Why? Because the Fed Gov threatens to
reduce or end its subsidies, grants, matching funds, etc etc to the
state. That would require the state government to either cut state
programs or raise taxes — AND LOSE THE NEXT ELECTION. So . . . state
governments have become corrupted too. ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS
ABSOLUTELY. They cave in to being in cahoots with the Fed Gov even when
they know it’s wrong, to preserve their own jobs. And ultimately it’s
the people who are also to blame, for WANTING to participate in the
whole scam of our corrupted system — the people DO throw people out of
office if they fail to “bring home the bacon” from Washington DC. The
people’s VALUES have been corrupted. Each state’s citizens WANT their
reps to get money for THEIR state that was seized by the Fed Gov from
OTHER states, and they will NOT re-elect someone whose principled stand
protecting their liberties under the Constitution leads to a loss in Fed
funding. The ultimate problem is sourced in the altered values of the
people themselves, and their ignorance of where this is all steering us.
People no longer understand their founding documents or sufficiently
value their freedoms, or understand what is necessary to avoid losing
their freedoms.
I’ll bet you will NOT see the above news reported
at ANY “COS”-advocacy site, because just as Rita has deleted two of my
comments here, and just as this is very common practice at MANY COS
websites, blogsites, and FB pages, where the news, the facts, and the
arguments are censored or deleted when they offer too convincing an
argument for the truth, or some fact which provides too-convincing
evidence or proof that their claims are false, SO WILL THEY CENSOR THE
NEWS ABOVE. And I would not be at all surprised if this comment gets
deleted quite promptly, as my prior one was.
I urge you to go to the link above before the information in this comment is again deleted by Rita.
PS to Noah and anyone who reads this. This is a copy of a post above, which itself was a copy of the SECOND
I agree the states are the answer. I only disagree as to the tool. Nullification of unconstitutional federal laws at the state level is the correct remedy.
Or even at the level of the individual citizen at this point, since the states have become collaborators with the Fed Gov in ignoring the constitution. This is true even for the most red of the red states.
The only problem with that is SCOTUS. If SCOTUS rules against the States, as they are most apt to do, what recourse do we have then? Ignore SCOTUS?
I certainly would, but would anyone else?
It’s time to clarify the meaning of the Founders’ words and put it in modern English… and add a term limit amendment while we’re at it.
But not by the means of a ConCon
Your questions are irrelvant, Alan in Bon Air.
You don’t know how long it would take to cure our ills by educating the public, and even if you’re right that it would take a long time (I think you are), we don’t necessarily NEED to cure them all immediately in order to avoid a crisis.
A little bit of proper education may not eliminate all the problems we’ve accumulated over the course of many decades, but it may buy time and push the impending crisis forward — ie, enable us to put off the crisis for sufficent time to do a little more educating, and halt or significantly slow the rate at which we’re approaching it. If that time is used to do more educating, ditto. And even if we should experience a “crisis” anyway, it may not be quite as severe as it would otherwise have been, we may squeak through and survive it, to then capitalize on that crisis should we find that the electorate’s ears have become more attentive to learning about that severe but not-quite-AS-severe crisis’ cause — which would accelerate the leaning process, which would buy us more time before a worse one can get all its ducks in a row, and . . . I’m sure you see where this hypothesis is headed.
I’m not saying that’s NECESSARILY what’s gonna happen. JUst that it might be. IE, just that YOUR implicit premise is not necessarily correct (in other words it’s NOT necessarily correct to conclude that because we don’t have time to educate the electorate sufficiently to COMPETELY reverse all the causes of a looming crisis, it’s futile to attempt the educational process).
The fact is we CAN’T know the answer to whether or not your conclusion is correct. We can only surmise, or try to make (educated?) guesses. AND . . .
THIS is a fact too:
If you KNOW that A causes B, and if you KNOW that the ONLY cure for B is to eliminate A, then even if you THINK we don’t have time to eliminate A before B becomes fatal, you STILL MUST act to remove the cause A. You really have no choice. It may not work, but it may — and it’s your only hope.
There are people working on the problem of extending the human lifespan to several times its current length. Most if not all of these people do not believe that goal will is reachable within their lifetimes. But that doesn’t stop them from working on the problem.
So you think that a government that won’t obey the constitution will obey it if we get an amendment telling them to obey it. Tell me where in the Constitution it says the federal Government has the right to regulate guns or ammo? It is not there, but they regulate them anyhow. So we pass an amendment telling them they can’t do it and that will stop them. Wait it seems we already have an amendment telling them they can’t regulate arms, called the 2nd amendment. How has that worked for you.
CONSIDER THIS:
In her article, Rita Dunaway states that
” . . . the 1787 Constitutional Convention was not called pursuant to some
provision of the Articles of Confederation. It was called by the states,
as individual sovereigns, for the very purpose of ‘render[ing] the
Federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union.’ ”
This is not true.
She
claims to have a “background in Constitutional Law” and to have
researched, for over a year, the law and history of Article V. Either
she does not know the difference between “calling for” a convention and
“calling” a convention.
After the ineffective convention of 1786
which WAS called by a few states, several states called FOR another
convention. Some of them asked the Continental Congress to call one.
It did, in February of 1787.
Anyone can “call for” anything.
When someone says “There oughta be a law . . . ” they are “calling for”
a law about whatever it is they’d like to see. They are expressing a
WISH or REQUEST that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE (or someone or some particular
entity) DO SOMETHING. The person or people or institution which
ACTUALLY BEGINS THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT SOMETHING, BY GALVANIZING THE
PROCESS WHICH CREATES IT AND TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTUALLY DOING
IT, who brings together the necessary people and conditions which CREATE
the event itself, are who “called” it.
The states called the
FAILED 1786 convention. Because it failed, they called FOR another one
and requested the Continental Congress to call it. The Continental
Congress called one for the “sole and express purpose” of proposing
changes to the Constitution (our first constitution, the Articles of
Confederation). They set a date (May 2, 1787), the place
(Philadelophia) and the states sent delegates to it (except for Rhode
Island).
Ms Dunaway relies on a complete irrelevancy to create a
non-existent difference between that convention and the one she would
like to see today under Article V. Because the Articles of
Convention did not have a specific clause like Article V in it, that
makes them different. That’s patently ridiculous, on its face.
The
Congress is the legislature, the law making body. It was the creation
of the states when they drew up the Articles of Confederation just as
our current congress is the creation of the states who send delegates to
the 1787 convention.
Article V provides two PROCEDURES
describing HOW amendments to the Cnstitution may be made, and one of
them MIMICS ALMOST TO A TEE THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE CONTINENTAL
CONGRESS CALLED THE 1787 CONVENTION.
No one can stop anyone from
calling a Constitutional Convention anyway. It is our right, under the
Declaration of INdependence, to alter or even abolish our government if
we choose. Anyone can exercise his right to freedom of speech and
freedom of assembly to call for and/or to call (actually arrange for) a
meeting, conference or convention to discuss or propose changes to their
government. And whatever reason they first decide to have such a
convention, they are free to come up with any ideas or proposals their
hearts desire.
This has been affirmed by expert after expert
throughout US history. A convention is the expression of people who
are being governed, and THEY are the repository and source of ALL
rights. A convention is acknowledged (by those who themselves are
acknowledged by history as the greatest constitutional experts of
history) as THE HIGHEST law making body of all, higher even than the
constitution under which it might (or might not) be called.
The
acknowledged authority of the time was Black’s Law Dictionary, which
defines a CONSTITUTIONAL Convention as any convention called for or
called by any government branch or body whose purpose is to examine or
suggest or propose any changes whatsoever to a current constitution.
“ANY” is in front of every act and person or entity involved. It’s
simple English: a CONSTITUTIONAL convention is ANY convention that
deals wsith ANY aspect of the constitution. If it deals with some
aspect of the Constitution, it’s a Constitutional Convention. Simple.
Article V’s second of two described procedures involves a
convention which CONGRESS “shall call,” just as the Continental Congress
called the 1787 convention.
Rita is trying to have it both
ways. She claims that the 1787 convention was called by the states.
Can you believe it? She calls an Article V convention a “COS” or
“convention of states” which NO ONE HAS EVER CALLED IT BEFORE IN US
HISTORY until very recently, and says that IT is different from the 1787
“con con,” and then in another context, she makes a very emphatic
insistence on the importance of the fact that the 1787 convention WAS
CALLED BY THE STATES!!
We have an Article V which explicitly
says that upon REQUEST of enough states (ie, their “applications” to
congress) the CONGRESS “shall” then be obliged to call a convention.
IE,
ARticle V, which gives CONGRESS the power to call the convention, is a
“Convention of States” according to RITA. But she emphasizes elsewhere
that this is totally different from the 1787 constitutional convention,
because THAT convention was CALLED BY THE STATES. But it was NOT a
“convention of states” even though all its delegates were indeed
selected by the individual states. Meanwhile, an Article V convention,
which is EXPLICITLY to be called by Congress, is according to Rita a
“Convention of States.”
NOW do you understand how frustrating
it is to deal with the “cos” advocates who are twisting words to such
impossible and preposterous extremes to make a case that is equally
preposterous and absurd — and capitalizing on the lack of knowledge of
history of many people to convince them of something that is patently
untrue?
Just recently the Assembly of State Legislatures met in
Washington DC and notes from their meeting show that in preparing for a
possible Artricle V convention, they wish it to have delegates drawn
from our House, Senate, and include also federal Judges.
Rita
and the COS leadership keep telling us that it will be the state
legislatures who control the Article V convention. But we now find out
that the Assembly of State Legislators wants federal judges and members
of CONGRESS to be delegates to that convention.
We told you so. The COS pushers are not being honest – to put it very politely.
They
deny that the 1787 Convention is a precedent for a modern Article V
cnvention because it was a “runaway” convention and an Article V
convention CAN’T be, since it will be controlled by the states.
Yet
we now see that, as WE told you many times, there is NOTHING in Article
V’s language saying that, and in fact Art V explicitly gives CONGRESS
the EXCLUSIVE authority to call (arrange the details of) an Article V
convention. Meanwhile, they deny that Congress called the 1787
convention when it most certainly DID do so, but the Continental
congress — in specifying the details — told the states to choose the
delegates, which they did do. Yet it was NOT a “convention of states”
according to Rita while an Article V convention IS, even though we find
that the Assembly of State Legislators is acting on the assumption that
CONGRESS will call the Article V convention too, JUST AS THE 1787
CONVENTION WAS CALLED, but this time, the state legislators are planning
to ALLOW MEMBERS OF OUR CORRUPT CONGRESS TO BE DELEGATES TO IT, AS WELL
AS FEDERAL JUDGES!!
In short, just about everything the COS
pushers say is untrue. They made up the idea of a “conventin of states”
and intentionally confused and misinterpreted history to create their
fictional narrative. The truth is that, if anything, it was the 1787
convention that was FAR closer to what these people describe as a
“convention of states” than an article V convention would be!!
If
an ARricle V convention is called, then BOTH it AND the 1787 Convention
will have been called by Congress. The 1787 Convention’s delegates
WERE chosen by the states because Congress told them to select the
delegates for teh convention Congress was calling. The ARticle V
convention WILL HAVE DELEGATES FROM CONGRESS AND THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY,
it now appears, and WE have warned that this was possible all along,
while the COS leadership has denied its possibility. Meanwhile, it
wsa teh 1787 Convention that was told it wsa being called “solely and
expressly” for the purpose of recommending amendments and changes to our
1st constituion (the Articles of Confederation were our 1st
Constitution). But Artricle V, while it does say that it is providing
the procedure for amendments, does NOT say so anywhere near as
emphatically as the congressional mandate to the 1787 delegate, that
that was SOLELY AND EXPRESSLY the purpose of their mission at the
convention.
Yet the COS leadership tells us that was a “con con”
and Article V is oh, so different, when in fact all the assurances they
give about Article V, and the way they describe it, APPLY MORE TO THE
1787 CONVENTION which they call a “con con” and deny it was a “cos” even
though it has far more characteristics of what tehy define as a “cos”
then their own “cos” does!!!
SUMMARY
So the one she claims was called by the states was not, and the one she claims is being called by the states is not.
She and the COS leaders say the 1787 Convention was called by the states, but it was called by the Continental Congress.
She and the COS leaders say that an ARticle V convention is one called by the states, but it will be called by Congress.
She
and the COS leaders say that the states will control the Art V
convention but we now have PROOF IN HAND that it will not be, since even
the state legislators want federal judges and members of our corrupt
congress to be delegates.
She and the COS leaders say that the
1787 convention was NOT a “convention of states” even though all the
delegates WERE selected by the states (because congress told them to do
the choosing).
She and the COS leaders describe all the above as
things which give us protection from a “runaway” convention, like the
1787 convention, but AN ART V CONVENTION IN FACT DOES NOT HAVE THESE
PROTECTIONS, AND IN FACT THE 1787 HAD MORE OF THEM THAN AN ARTICLE V
CONVENTION WOULD.
She and the COS leaders call the 1787
convention a “con con” and say that this is oh, so differfent from a
“convention of states” based on a completely irrelevant minor
difference. The say that the 1787 convention was NOT a “convention of
states” even though all its delegates were teh selections of their
individual states. They say that an Article V convention IS a
“convention of states” even though in fact its delegates will be
selected in a manner that our corrupt CONGRESS chooses, and which even
many state legislators are ALREADY saying they wish to include federal
judges AND MEMBERS OF OUR CURRUPT CONGRESS as delegates to.
She
and the COS leaders say IN ANOTHER CONTEXT (see the early part of
Rita’s own blog above) that the 1787 convention was called by the states
(it was NOT), but then elsewhere deny that it was a convention of
states, even though they’ve said it was called by the states, and even
though its delegates were selected by the states.
Meanwhile
they call and Art V convention a “Conventin of States” even though it
will be called by Congress and its delegates, it now appears to be
CERTAIN, will include members of our corrupt congress and federal judges
— as WE, the opposition to these charlatans, have told you all along.
There is MUCH more to say but I’ll rest my case here for the time being.
The founders didn’t have a particularly informed electorate either. Hell only a third of the country was with them. Things are drastic and your idea assumes things that have never been true in a time of political crisis
idiotpuncher:
I admit I am not familiar with any correlation between an educated electorate and times of crisis. But even if you are 100% right that the first has never been present during times of crisis, I hope you realize that this proves nothing; correlation is not causality.
It would not surprise me if your claim is indeed 100% true that an educated electorate has never been present in times of crisis (of course, if we were to discuss the reasons for that, I’d want to make sure we first agreed on definitions for “educated electorate” and “crisis”). That would kinda-sorta make sense. HOWEVER . . .
You could be right about that and still be wrong in your dispute with Mitchell Shaw BECAUSE
It also seems pretty reasonable that an ENABLING CAUSE OF CRISIS is the very uneducated electorate that accompanies it.
It seems to make very good sense that when an electorate IS well educated and informed, they are more capable of detecting the early warning signs of trouble before problems get to crisis proportions and thus to prevent any crises. If so, you’d never or rarely see crises occurring when the electorate was well informed/educated — exactly what you claim is a historic fact.
And the other side of this coin would be that as the electorate became UN-informed, troubles were more likely to get to the crisis point before the electorate even noticed they’d been brewing, which would lead to repeated observations of crises occurring when the electorate was uneducated/uninformed — again, exactly what you claim is a historic fact.
In other words, it could easily be the case that the correlation you mention is a consequence of the fact that an educated electorate IS THE ONLY WAY TO STAVE OFF CRISES. IE, that’s why crises occur WHEN THE ELECTORATE IS NOT WELL EDUCATED.
This would be consistent with today’s situation too. For a long time the public has been getting “dumbed down” for quite a few reasons. And our nation’s problems have been growing apace with that. We can actually demonstrate many of the causal details regarding how the looming constitutional and other crises have evolved as a consequence of the public’s being “dumbed down” and misinformed about our founding documents and about the nature of “AMERICAN values” and what’s required to keep the benefits they confer.
The electorate was better educated in the 19th century than it is today. It got dumbed down gradually over approximately the last 3-4 generations. We face a crisis. Perhaps that’s BECAUSE an educated electorate is a prerequisite for avoiding the kind of crisis we face and may be the only way to stop it.
The most important things to know:
http://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2013/12/09/exposing-the-convention-of-the-states-cos-as-an-article-v-constitutional-convention/
The founders had a very educated and informed electorate. Most were on the same page when it came to a Creator, truth, justice, freedom and the principles of free government. Duty to God and fellow man was a unifying creed.
First graders read out of the New England primer and American youth, up to the early 1800’s, were taught more truths of free government (which in essence are biblical truths) than most lawyers, judges and academics today.
Thanks,
Ms Yeisley.
Let’s see if this comment gets deleted ONCE AGAIN.
it’s a 3 minute
video taken by a vid-cam which was inadvertently left on. It records
the TWO PAID LOBBYISTS FOR THE “COS” PROJECT CONTRADICTING THE COS
PROJECT’S OWN CLAIMS IN ORDER TO EXTORT THE COOPERATION OF A NEVADA
STATE LEGISLATOR IN SUPPORTING THE COS.
It’s the COS movement’s claim that an Article V cnvention’s voting will be 1 vote for each state.
There
is NOTHING ANYWHERE to justify this fabricated claim. They keep
telling the same lie until people believe it. NO ONE can know in
advance what will be the voting procedure decided upon.
HOWEVER,
these 2 PAID PROFESSIONAL LOBBYISTS are trying to work on this Nevada
state legislator to help push his state’s legislature to apply to
Congress for an Article V convention. Listen. They are claiming that
Nevada will not have much say at the convention if they are not one of
the states who requested it in the first place. LYING ABOUT THEIR OWN
LIE in order to motivate (extort) and manipulate the behavior of a
state legislator.
What kind of dishonest, crooked, charlatan scum
would be involved in a program to achieve their means by deception?
ANSWER: The same kind who are deceiving countless conservatives about
the “COS” with their 100% FICTIONAL narrative of US history which bears
no relation to the facts.
The video speaks for itself
— assuming it’s not deleted AGAIN from this thread, where several
PROOFS of that the COS Project’s version of history and of Article V’s
meaning falsehood have been censored by deletion.
PLEASE
check every”fact,” quote, and assertion YOURSELF at the original source
or you will become a “useful idiot” supporting our worst enemies, and
slitting your own throat, as well as the throats of you children,
grandchildren and other loved ones.
That is an amazing statement from someone who has zero faith in anyone who would be involved with an Article V amendment process.
Are the opposers on this blog from the John Birch Society?
You know, putting words in someone’s mouth is a weak way to present an argument. I never said I don’t have faith in anyone who would be involved. What I have said time and again in my writings and presentations is that empowering the very elected officials who have demonstrated their disdain for the constitution the power to change it is a lousy way to fix what’s wrong.
And while I can’t speak for anyone else on here, I am proud of my association with the JBS.
As am I.
Hear, Hear from here.
Like that would be a bad thing? The JBS membership is primarily successful business owners. I am less distrustful of successful businessmen that I am of professional politicians.
As Will Rogers said, “No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” (Mark Twain).
This country became great, giving proof positive that lassez faire free enterprise works. I have yet to be shown an incident wherein the JBS was untruthful or wrong in any assertion.
No, I am not a member. I am an avid reader, historian, and Constitutional advocate.
In her article, Rita Dunaway states that
” . . . the 1787 Constitutional Convention was not called pursuant to some
provision of the Articles of Confederation. It was called by the states,
as individual sovereigns, for the very purpose of ‘render[ing] the
Federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union.’ ”
This is not true.
She
claims to have a “background in Constitutional Law” and to have
researched, for over a year, the law and history of Article V. Either
she does not know the difference between “calling for” a convention and
“calling” a convention, OR . . . fill in the blank yourself.
.
After the ineffective convention of 1786
which WAS called by a few states, several states called FOR another
convention. Some of them asked the Continental Congress to call one.
It did, in February of 1787.
Anyone can “call for” anything.
When someone says “There oughta be a law . . . ” they are “calling for”
a law about whatever it is they’d like to see. They are expressing a
WISH or REQUEST that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE (or someone or some particular
entity) DO SOMETHING. The person or people or institution which
ACTUALLY BEGINS THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT SOMETHING, BY GALVANIZING THE
PROCESS WHICH CREATES IT AND TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTUALLY DOING
IT, who brings together the necessary people and conditions which CREATE
the event itself, are who “called” it.
The states called the
FAILED 1786 convention. Because it failed, they called FOR another one
and requested the Continental Congress to call it. The Continental
Congress called one for the “sole and express purpose” of proposing
changes to the Constitution (our first constitution, the Articles of
Confederation). They set a date (May 2, 1787), the place
(Philadelophia) and the states sent delegates to it (except for Rhode
Island).
Ms Dunaway relies on a complete irrelevancy to create a
non-existent difference between that convention and the one she would
like to see today under Article V. Because the Articles of
Convention did not have a specific clause like Article V in it, that
makes them different. That’s patently ridiculous, on its face.
The
Congress is the legislature, the law making body. It was the creation
of the states when they drew up the Articles of Confederation just as
our current congress is the creation of the states who send delegates to
the 1787 convention.
Article V provides two PROCEDURES
describing HOW amendments to the Cnstitution may be made, and one of
them MIMICS ALMOST TO A TEE THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE CONTINENTAL
CONGRESS CALLED THE 1787 CONVENTION.
No one can stop anyone from
calling a Constitutional Convention anyway. It is our right, under the
Declaration of INdependence, to alter or even abolish our government if
we choose. Anyone can exercise his right to freedom of speech and
freedom of assembly to call for and/or to call (actually arrange for) a
meeting, conference or convention to discuss or propose changes to their
government. And whatever reason they first decide to have such a
convention, they are free to come up with any ideas or proposals their
hearts desire.
This has been affirmed by expert after expert
throughout US history. A convention is the expression of people who
are being governed, and THEY are the repository and source of ALL
rights. A convention is acknowledged (by those who themselves are
acknowledged by history as the greatest constitutional experts of
history) as THE HIGHEST law making body of all, higher even than the
constitution under which it might (or might not) be called.
The
acknowledged authority of the time was Black’s Law Dictionary, which
defines a CONSTITUTIONAL Convention as any convention called for or
called by any government branch or body whose purpose is to examine or
suggest or propose any changes whatsoever to a current constitution.
“ANY” is in front of every act and person or entity involved. It’s
simple English: a CONSTITUTIONAL convention is ANY convention that
deals wsith ANY aspect of the constitution. If it deals with some
aspect of the Constitution, it’s a Constitutional Convention. Simple.
Article V’s second of two described procedures involves a
convention which CONGRESS “shall call,” just as the Continental Congress
called the 1787 convention.
Rita is trying to have it both
ways. She claims that the 1787 convention was called by the states.
Can you believe it? She calls an Article V convention a “COS” or
“convention of states” which NO ONE HAS EVER CALLED IT BEFORE IN US
HISTORY until very recently, and says that IT is different from the 1787
“con con,” and then in another context, she makes a very emphatic
insistence on the importance of the fact that the 1787 convention WAS
CALLED BY THE STATES!!
We have an Article V which explicitly
says that upon REQUEST of enough states (ie, their “applications” to
congress) the CONGRESS “shall” then be obliged to call a convention.
IE,
ARticle V, which gives CONGRESS the power to call the convention, is a
“Convention of States” according to RITA. But she emphasizes elsewhere
that this is totally different from the 1787 constitutional convention,
because THAT convention was CALLED BY THE STATES. But it was NOT a
“convention of states” even though all its delegates were indeed
selected by the individual states. Meanwhile, an Article V convention,
which is EXPLICITLY to be called by Congress, is according to Rita a
“Convention of States.”
NOW do you understand how frustrating
it is to deal with the “cos” advocates who are twisting words to such
impossible and preposterous extremes to make a case that is equally
preposterous and absurd — and capitalizing on the lack of knowledge of
history of many people to convince them of something that is patently
untrue?
Just recently the Assembly of State Legislatures met in
Washington DC and notes from their meeting show that in preparing for a
possible Artricle V convention, they wish it to have delegates drawn
from our House, Senate, and include also federal Judges.
Rita
and the COS leadership keep telling us that it will be the state
legislatures who control the Article V convention. But we now find out
that the Assembly of State Legislators wants federal judges and members
of CONGRESS to be delegates to that convention.
We told you so. The COS pushers are not being honest – to put it very politely.
They
deny that the 1787 Convention is a precedent for a modern Article V
cnvention because it was a “runaway” convention and an Article V
convention CAN’T be, since it will be controlled by the states.
Yet
we now see that, as WE told you many times, there is NOTHING in Article
V’s language saying that, and in fact Art V explicitly gives CONGRESS
the EXCLUSIVE authority to call (arrange the details of) an Article V
convention. Meanwhile, they deny that Congress called the 1787
convention when it most certainly DID do so, but the Continental
congress — in specifying the details — told the states to choose the
delegates, which they did do. Yet it was NOT a “convention of states”
according to Rita while an Article V convention IS, even though we find
that the Assembly of State Legislators is acting on the assumption that
CONGRESS will call the Article V convention too, JUST AS THE 1787
CONVENTION WAS CALLED, but this time, the state legislators are planning
to ALLOW MEMBERS OF OUR CORRUPT CONGRESS TO BE DELEGATES TO IT, AS WELL
AS FEDERAL JUDGES!!
In short, just about everything the COS
pushers say is untrue. They made up the idea of a “conventin of states”
and intentionally confused and misinterpreted history to create their
fictional narrative. The truth is that, if anything, it was the 1787
convention that was FAR closer to what these people describe as a
“convention of states” than an article V convention would be!!
If
an ARricle V convention is called, then BOTH it AND the 1787 Convention
will have been called by Congress. The 1787 Convention’s delegates
WERE chosen by the states because Congress told them to select the
delegates for teh convention Congress was calling. The ARticle V
convention WILL HAVE DELEGATES FROM CONGRESS AND THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY,
it now appears, and WE have warned that this was possible all along,
while the COS leadership has denied its possibility. Meanwhile, it
wsa teh 1787 Convention that was told it wsa being called “solely and
expressly” for the purpose of recommending amendments and changes to our
1st constituion (the Articles of Confederation were our 1st
Constitution). But Artricle V, while it does say that it is providing
the procedure for amendments, does NOT say so anywhere near as
emphatically as the congressional mandate to the 1787 delegate, that
that was SOLELY AND EXPRESSLY the purpose of their mission at the
convention.
Yet the COS leadership tells us that was a “con con”
and Article V is oh, so different, when in fact all the assurances they
give about Article V, and the way they describe it, APPLY MORE TO THE
1787 CONVENTION which they call a “con con” and deny it was a “cos” even
though it has far more characteristics of what tehy define as a “cos”
then their own “cos” does!!!
SUMMARY
So the one she claims was called by the states was not, and the one she claims is being called by the states is not.
She and the COS leaders say the 1787 Convention was called by the states, but it was called by the Continental Congress.
She and the COS leaders say that an ARticle V convention is one called by the states, but it will be called by Congress.
She
and the COS leaders say that the states will control the Art V
convention but we now have PROOF IN HAND that it will not be, since even
the state legislators want federal judges and members of our corrupt
congress to be delegates.
She and the COS leaders say that the
1787 convention was NOT a “convention of states” even though all the
delegates WERE selected by the states (because congress told them to do
the choosing).
She and the COS leaders describe all the above as
things which give us protection from a “runaway” convention, like the
1787 convention, but AN ART V CONVENTION IN FACT DOES NOT HAVE THESE
PROTECTIONS, AND IN FACT THE 1787 HAD MORE OF THEM THAN AN ARTICLE V
CONVENTION WOULD.
She and the COS leaders call the 1787
convention a “con con” and say that this is oh, so differfent from a
“convention of states” based on a completely irrelevant minor
difference. The say that the 1787 convention was NOT a “convention of
states” even though all its delegates were teh selections of their
individual states. They say that an Article V convention IS a
“convention of states” even though in fact its delegates will be
selected in a manner that our corrupt CONGRESS chooses, and which even
many state legislators are ALREADY saying they wish to include federal
judges AND MEMBERS OF OUR CURRUPT CONGRESS as delegates to.
She
and the COS leaders say IN ANOTHER CONTEXT (see the early part of
Rita’s own blog above) that the 1787 convention was called by the states
(it was NOT), but then elsewhere deny that it was a convention of
states, even though they’ve said it was called by the states, and even
though its delegates were selected by the states.
Meanwhile
they call and Art V convention a “Conventin of States” even though it
will be called by Congress and its delegates, it now appears to be
CERTAIN, will include members of our corrupt congress and federal judges
— as WE, the opposition to these charlatans, have told you all along.
There is MUCH more to say but I’ll rest my case here for the time being.
Madison, Hamilton, Jay and the other framers were strongly against an Article V convention and anyone who’d ask for one. Madison described some of them in very insulting terms. The reason the convention option says that CONGRESS “shall call” — ie CONTROL THE STRUCTURE AND DELEGATES AND SO ON — is that the framers regarded a convention left solely in the hands of the states as POTENTIALLY EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. Three delegates (Mason, Randolph, and Gerry) wanted the states to have a means for amending which bypassed congress and ALL OTHER DELEGATES WERE UNAIMOUSLY OPPOSED TO THAT. As a 2nd alternative, they offered the states the means of INITIATING the amendment process by giving them the ability to FORCE Congress to act and call a convention. But THAT WAS AS FAR AS THEY WOULD GO. They wanted Congressional oversight for the very reason we have Republic and not a democracy, ie that we have REPRESENTATIONAL government, NOT democracy.
It is a LIE, and it’s hard to imagine it wasn’t intentional, to point to the unanimity of the vote for the convention option and claim that this proves the Framers wanted us to use it. That stands the truth on its head.
The truth is that they had hoped ALL delegates, even those with minor differences, would unanimously sign the Constitution the convention came up with as “team players” so to speak, to get for the nation an excellent document they were unlikely ever to be able to obtain again. Mason and his “gang of three” threatened to REFUSE to sign the final document. Mason referred to the convention option of Art V as a “trick,” as “subterfuge” and as a “personal insult” to himself. He misunderstood the whole point of amendments which were NEVER intended for the purpose of controlling a corrupt congress or gov’t — we have MUCH STRONGER tools for that (which like most Americans, you too seem oblivious too, and THAT’S the reason our nation’s going downhill). Mason did not realize how incredibly INEFFECTIVE amendments were for that task.
So . . . Mason had a hard time believing that NONE of the other delegates would agree to give the states a means where they’d have SOLE power to add amendments to the Constitution themselves. He asked the others, they UNANIMOUSLY disagreed with him and he stormed out after saying he’d rather cut off his right hand than sign the constitution with that provision in Article V.
Mason, like many today, made the GROSS ERROR of holding the view which the leaders of the COS movement today hold — people like Mark Levin, Mark Meckler, Rob Natelson, and other Constitutional ignoramuses, even thought a few of them have some sort of credentials, having gotten a degree and gotten some papers published which were praised ONLY by others who share that dumb, erroneous minority view. And so, unlike real experts who also have brains, they have had to go out on a super well-financed (by donors including the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, and by George Soros) to convince many conservatives that Art V is something WHICH IT IS NOT.
The convention option was NOT “chosen” to be added as something desirable. It was OFFERED AS A SMALL MOVE IN MASON’S DIRECTION TO COMPROMISE WITH HIM, making sure it had Congressional oversight of the states in calling the convention, in the hope that Mason would graciously yield to the compromise as graciously as it was offered. But Mason took it the wrong way, and stormed out of the Convention, and in fact did not return to sign the Constitution 2 days later.
The entire “COS” movement is an attempt to resurrect the view of 3 mistaken delegates at the 1787 Convention. The whole idea of adding an amendment provision to the Constitution was almost an afterthought in the first place. Amendments are meant as means to correct errors, or revise something when new information comes up about it, the way an author will revise his book. Mason turned it into a big deal having to do with restraining a corrupt Congress, for which MANY other remedies exist and had been provided, both in and aside from the Constitution itself. NONE of the other delegates were prepared to risk the possible DESTRUCTION OF THE REST OF THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENT by yielding to Mason’s demand. State legislatures were then, and have since been, known for taking spur of the moment actions of the type which, if done to the Constitution, would destroy it entirely. If they want to start over and create a new government, they don’t need the Constitution to do that, and besides, the constitution is not a logical place to offer the “authorization” for destroying it’s authority — that would be a contraiction and make the Constitution a laughing stock.
The other delegates made an attempt to keep Mason in the fold by offering the above described compromise with him. He refused, and took it the wrong way, probably because of his warped view of the importance of the amendment process.
One of the “checks and balances” the founders wanted was to make it DIFFICULT to amend the constitution. You can change laws frequently, but a Constitution is BASIC PRINCIPLES meant “for all time.” You create it with extreme care and very very very careful consideration, preferably by very very intelligent representatives of the People. THEN, you make sure, as best you can, that it will NEVER be changed in haste without the same kind of very exhaustive analysis. A doctor doesn’t chop off your legs to see if it’ll cure your cold, figuring he can always sew it back on if it doesn’t. He thinks, and makes no rash actions until he is convinced they are needed, or have a great chance of helping. That’s the basic idea of a constitution and amending it. A constition is the soul and body of a NATION. It is not a frog in Biology 1 lab for dissection and replacement every day.
Mason and his 2 friends refused to vote on the measure, so it was passed unanimously by ALL other delegates — then he stormed out, furious, and never returned. Whether the other two were as furious as he was, I don’t know. He was their “leader without title” and I have not seen anything which might have been said by either of the other 2. But they did stand with Mason, and left with him, and also refused to sign the finished document 2 days later.
You might say Mason was like the leaders of today’s “COS” movement, and his 2 pals are like the dupes who swallowed his erroneous arguments. Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Franklin, ALL the other delegates thought there was NO NEED for that entire 2nd means of amending the constitution in the first place, and included it only as a sop to Mason — giving states the power to force Congress off its duff at THEIR demand, and hoped that would be enough of a token toward the states’ rights to mollify Mason. Even Thomas Jefferson, who was in France during the Convention and could not attend, later expressed his agreement.
It takes either gross ignorance or a helluva nerve for some of the self-appointed “scholars” and “experts” who have anointed each other with those titles at their own “conferences” and in their own meetings and websites and published magazines or whatever, to tell the world the lie that the founding fathers gave Art V’s conference to us so they must have wanted us to use it. Heaven forbid. All hoped it would NEVER have to be used, and they shot down UNANIMOUSLY even the ACTUAL convention option of Art V which is much weaker than the way the “COS” people “interpret” it. THEY INTERPRET IT TO MEAN EXACTLY WHAT MASON WANTED, WHICH IS WHAT THE CONVENTION OF ART V INTENTIONALLY REFUSED TO GIVE HIM. NOW THE COS LEADERSHIP IS ASKING CONSERVATIVES TO CONTRADICT WHAT THE FRAMERS IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS EXPRESSED AS THEIR DESIRE, AND TO EMBRACE WHAT THE FRAMERS UNANIMOUSLY, IN NO UNCERTAIN TERM, OPPOSED.
All this happened on the last day of deliberations when the delegates were undoubtedly anxious to go home. Quite a few had already left. You may not realize it but in that era we had a long cold period in the climate cycle (remember the pix of Washington crossing a Delaware River chock full of ice?), and winter came a lot earlier than it has in recent times, though we seem to be heading for another cycle of very cold weather again now. And in those days, it was not a simple matter of hopping on a plane or into a car or even a train to travel from the convention to their homes in other states. The way it happened, with Mason practically challenging them to vote on it to prove what he could hardly believe (in his mistaken view of amendments), namely that there was not even one other delegate who saw things his way — THAT’s the unusual or “accident of” circumstance which forced a vote on it right there in front of Mason, and it was unanimous.
The COS explanations are complicated and require you to suspend your common sense. They take simple language like the fact that CONGRESS “shall call” the convention, and create all kinds of preposterous assertions which are not valid or outright falsehoods to “prove” this does not mean what it so clearly and unambiguously says. If you simply take the 5th Article on its face, as you can do with all other parts of teh Constitution very easily, it is very straightforward, and the facts are 100% consistent with it, no arguments or ambiguities. It’s only the COS view that requires the contortion of the English language for “understanding.”
That’s because they are trying to re-write what all of prior US history knew was the unquestioned “given.” The COS leaders are trying to resurrect what Mason WANTED, and claim it’s what the other delegates voted for. History PROVES he didn’t get what he wanted from them, and what he did get was so far from what he wanted that he actually used word like “tricker,” “subterfuge,” and “insult” to describe it. They voted for something that would PREVENT the states from bypassing congress!!!!! PREVENT, PREVENT, PREVENT!!! That was their intent. So THAT is why the COS leaders need to manufacture so many lies — in order to “prove” that what they passed does NOT mean what its words say. In order to prove that when Article V gives EXCLUSIVE power to CONGRESS to call the convention, they “really” meant the States have all the power to call it.
This whole COS thing is so obviously a scam from beginning to end, it is amazing how many people just fall for it. I think maybe it’s cuz they WANT to believe it. If it were true, it would be offering us an EXTREMELY EASY solution for the very difficult problems our nation faces. Too many people are willing to suspend their brainpower and give control to their wishes. But it’s not true.
Do you really think so many intelligent patriots would be fighting this tooth and nail if they didn’t know it’s a crock of baloney?
The COS leadership has made claims which are not only untrue, but the PRECISE, EXACT, DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH.
This cannot be entirely accidental. We know that the left has many paid “trolls” who visit conservative sites to cause dissension and to distract them from using their resources against the left, to get them squabbling amongst themselves. It’s one of Geo Soros’s favorite techniques in political “battles.”
We already know that many really HARD leftists support the COS idea and are hard at work pushing it. It makes me wonder how many amongst the COS leadership are leftist wolves in sheep’s clothing. And how many are doing it only to make names and careers for themselves. The COS Project refuses to disclose who provides its funding, and NO ONE from amongst its funders has come out willing to take credit for contributing to their funding. WHY NOT?
And…. its public leadership is PAID SALARIES by The COS Project — the amounts of which none will reveal. Some now get nice honorariums for speaking engagements. At least on of them has joined up with an organiztion which has 2 co-founders — one of them being a co-founder of MoveOn. org. This COS leader is ranked by the organization as one of its “Champions” — right there with Van Jones, the admitted communist who was forced to retire from his position as an Obama Czar when his felony jail time was disclosed for criminal activity he was involved in for the Communist party. Jones is STILL a communist, an avid one, who wants to tear down our Constitutional Republic and replace our free markets with communism. What is this organization? Google it — it’s called “Living Room Conversations,” and it is alleged to be a “non partisan” group, looking for “common ground” amongst people on the left and right. Go to their site, and you’ll be hard put to find a single person from the right — except this one leader of the COS movement I’m referring to. Click on “About” in the header at their home page and you’ll see their “Champions” including a laundry list of lefties, including the co-founder of “Living Room Partners” who is also co-founder of MoveOn.org, including VAn Jones.
Read the wording at their sites various pages. IT’s ALL the kind of vague, mom and apple pie-sounding hot air typical of the left. They are “cooperating” to “energize change” and seek “common goals” for “effective action.” They want to “empower ” the people from both sides of the political spectrum by their “non partisan” search for their “common human goals.” Etc ETc.
Who is their CHAMPION from the “COS” movement? It’s none other than Mark Meckler of The COS Project, the fellow who made an estimated $600K/yr working for Herbalife by means of its pyramid remuneration scheme, a firm which put a now-banned “feel good” substance in many of its products, and went bankrupt in the midst of many lawsuits from its customers who’d been harmed by its products. He is the fellow who all of a sudden claims to have become a politically concerned person when the Tea Party started — after a lifetime of thinking of politics as a “sport.” But right off the bat he co-founded Tea Party Patriots, which also very coincidentally used its contributions and early membership fees in a pyramid compensation scheme for its national leaders. The other co-founder was, with her husband, heavily in debt to the tune of well over a million dollars when they founded TPP with Meckler, and the husband got the job equivalent to Treasurer. Many people have left TPP comnplaining of how the money was spent. Meckler himself left about 2-3 years after his “epiphany” about politics . . . and joined THE COS PROJECT, another “start up” that is obviously heavily funded, since it became a national organizaion over night, via heavy marketing and a group of leaders who receive salaries they won’t disclose from funders they won’t disclose. And recently, Meckler has become a co-Champion with Van Jones and other lefties at “Living Room Conversations,” a blatantly obvious left-advancement group.
Please let me know if you still trust the ideas the COS people have brainwashed you with, and if you still trust those leaders. I have a really great deal you just can’t refuse. It’s a bridge in Brooklyn I know the owner wants to sell and I can get for you real cheap.
Well…we are citizens of the greatest Republic, the greatest Nation, and the greatest society the world has ever known…just for starters.
“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”
Benjamin Franklin
The reason the educate and elect process takes so long is because so many take the same attitude as you have.
That’s also the reason so many impatient people are letting wishful thinking overtake their decision making ability.
Haste makes waste.
If
you intend to continue thinking about the Aricle V amendment process,
ONE thing you should educate yourself about is: the Article V
amendment process, otherwise you will be incapable of thinking about it
correctly.
That’s such an easy task, it’s amazing so few are
willing to do it before leaping to swallow what a lot of proven con
artists are telling them. That’s easier than educating yourself, which
of course trumps every other consideration, including the truth.
Assuming
you actually do prefer to be educated a bit on what you want to try
thinking about, there’s at least ONE thing that’s mandatory for you to
educate yourself about, and that’s what an amendment is, and what it’s
intended purpose is.It’s pretty clear from the context here that you
haven’t done that, so here’s a shortcut to accommodate your impatience
with having to pause until you get things right instead of rushing in
where angels fear to tread:
Go to Federalist #43 and about 2 or 3
or 4 pages from the end, you’ll find a couple paragraphs where Madison
talks about the 3/4 ratification requirement for amendments — about why
the 3/4 figure is a good one, in his opinion. Once you spot that
you’re at the right place — just keep reading for about a half page or
less.
That’s when you’ll find out what ALL the founders believed
but rarely mentioned explicitly because it was just a “given” that NO
ONE would every think of questioning. I refer to the fact that THE
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENTS, AND OF ARTICLE V, TO BEGIN WITH never had A THING
to do with restraining or containing fed gov excess.
Madison
cleverly avoids mentioning Article V but refers to the provisions of
“the constuttion” which are only in Article V, since he did NOT approve
of adding the confention item to Article V — but preferred not to
advertise that position until AFTER the Constitution was ratified.
Maybe he didn’t want ignorant people to create a mindless debate about
irrelevancies like the COS-manufactured red-herring today.
As
Madison mentions, amendments are “amendments of error.” They were
intended as a process to make changes which over time revealed minor
errors, omissions, and oversights by the framers in writing the
constitution. Amnendments were the means to correct such errors.
The framers would have laughed at you and the COS people for choosing
article V as the weapon for restraining a power-usurping fed gov, as
virtually all the delegates to the 1787 Convention suppressed their
laughter out of politeness to toward the 3 fellows who also thought the
way the COS leaders tell you to think about amendments.
There
are other better methods which are easily and quickly “taught” to
voters once they become receptive and eager to change — and they would
probably be using some of them now, it they had not been distracted by
the charlatans behind the COS movement and the phony debate they’ve
created as a red herring.
Yes, haste makes waste, like the time
you intend to waste on a not-merely-useless but very counter-productive
effort of thinking about Article V.
The founders gave us quite a
few ways to stop the fed gov from abusing its power, and most americans
were so aware of them for the nation’s first 100-plus years that the
gov’t only attempted to abuse its power in a few and not terribly
threatening ways, for the most part — cuz the gov’t knew it’d never get
away with it. By now, you probably can’t even name more than a
couple of these methods we have which would easily have nipped fed gov
expansion in the bud if . . . they’d remained as educated as their
fathers and grandfathers had been about this issue.
Not only
Madison but virtually all the delegates and all the Founding FAthers
knew this. Thomas Jefferson, tho not a delegate tol the 1787
convention, made a statement about the weakness and uselessness of
attempting to use amendments for the purpose of restraining gov’t, when
so many less risky and more effective means are available.
Once
the COS leadership has persuaded enough people that amendments are the
only way to go when in fact they are the absolute DUMBEST way to even
think of going (Consttutional dummy-in-chief Mark Levin
notwithstanding), once enough dupes have been coraled, then as the
contradictions of this COS lie arise, NEW lies are necessary in order to
maintain the fiction of Amendments’ efficacy, so they can get their
convention as voted for by the dummies, and then surprise the dummies
when the veils are ripped off their eyes by the actual facts of the
convention itself.
Some of those other lies are that Article V is
the only way the states can bypass congress. You may laugh at this,
but for the wrong reasons: As a matter of IRONIC FACT, Article V is
not only NOT a way for states to bypass congress, but it is IN FACT a
way for Congress to BYPASS THE STATES, once the states have initiated
the congressinal call for the convention. The states actually GIVE UP
far more power than they gain via Article V’s convention option.
So
rush forward, Alan, laugh up your sleeve until you discover that this
is 100% correct. It’s probably inconceivable to you if you’ve been
steeped in the COS project’s manufactured bullcrap long enough, and
heard their answers to every possible criticism of their canon — ALL of
which are made up on the spot with whatever it takes to make them go
away, be it added new lies, false references to supporting evidence, out
of context quoting, bald faced untrue claims, or whatever else it has
taken for the COS leadership to maintain and support its FICTIONAL
narrative.
Alan, someday you will find out that the Article V
convention option is indeed the means for Congress to bypass the power
of states’ rights. I’m lauging when I think of all the people who SO
convinced they know everything, who are going to be shocked out of their
minds whne they find this out too late, a long with a LOT of other
things they know which aren’t true. I shouldn’t laugh — it will be THE
@1 TRAGEDY of US history if an Artricle V convention is called anytime
soon.
You may also notice at Fedralist #43 that in Madison’s
brief comment, he mentions that amendments (“of errors!!!”) are EQUALLY
initiated by the states or the federal gov’t, referring of course ot the
added convention option of Article V without referring to it as
anything but part of the constitution. And that BOTH parties may
propose these “amendments (ie corections) of error” as they spot them
through experience. IE, as the actual implementation of the Constuttion
reveals in its “real world test run” any of the oversights or omissions
or other errors and mperfections in the Constitution.
Educate
yourself a little bit to help get the ball rolling with the CORRECT
facts about Article V before you try thiniking about it solely on the
basis of the entirely fictional narrative of the leadershp of the
current COS advocacy. It actually does help to know at least few
correct facts about any topic you intend to think about, and that IS a
fact — which is often under-rated, especially it seems by those
advocating an Artcile V convention these days.
What is this all just a coinsidence that this is happening just a couple weeks after the Republican’s are sworn in with a US Senate majority, along with a US House majority? Now, the Republican’s, being led by Corporate Cash, also may have control of 3/4 of the State Governments that would be required.
Are you implying that “the people” that you mention above are anything but Republican’s?
Say it ain’t so?
Quiet, you. Adults are talking.
Hear, Hear Mr Hedrick. http://www.publiushuldah.wordpress.com
The author of the article has apparently removed my post here which
reported on a new development which FACTUALLY proves the “COS” position
100% wrong with 100% certainty. This is typical behavior from the
“COS” people. When something they cannot refute is posted, or
something very very convincing is posted on their site, in a thread on
FB, or a comment after an article like this one, or a website, they
simply delete it. It’s the SECOND TIME I have tried to have important
factual info posted here, only to see it disappear within hours.
My
post here yesterday is the second one which has been deleted. If
this site is like others, when a guest author’s article is published,
the author does not have authority to permanently ban a person, as many
“COS” sites are infamous for doing to knowledgeable adversaries at their
own sites, BUT the author is empowered to delete specific comments.
You
know that the COS position is that the states will run the convention
and send their own delegates there, presumably from their own
legislatures. This is obviously false from the language of Article V
but the “COS” propaganda refers to historical precedent — very
erroneously and falsely spun BTW — and the precedent would NOT be
binding anyway even if true, which it isn’t — and furthermore until the
recent advent of the latest push for an Article V convention, everyone
in US history understood that under Article V it would be CONGRESS who
determines the nature of the convention, choosing its time and place and
the method of delegate selection, etc. (That’s what Article V says
in very simple, obvious, straightforward language, ie that Congress
“shall call” the convention.) But the “COS” people just disregard this
and come up with a false rigamarole allegedly showing that the
convention will be run by the states WHICH HAS NOW ALSO BEEN PROVEN
FALSE AGAIN, BUT THIS TIME BY ACTUAL PREPARATORY ACTIONS FOR THE
CONVENTION, TAKEN BY THE STATES, WHO THEMSELVES ARE ALMOST AS CORRUPT AS
CONGRESS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOLD THEIR SOULS FOR A MESS OF FEDERAL
POTTAGE. The proof is this:
Below is an excerpt from a letter
sent to his constituents by Virginia State Senator Richard Black (sent
also to all voters in the State and to others around the nation). You
can access the FULL letter here, and I strongly recommend you do:
http://secure.campaigner.com/C…
I
STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU READ HIS ENTIRE LETTER AT THE LINK JUST ABOVE, but
here’s the excerpt from it regarding the notes he had ONLY RECENTLY
obtained from a meeting of 50 STATE LEGISLATORS which took place in
Washington DC on Dec 9 to discuss to make early plans for an Article V
convention. The excerpt from the Senator’s letter is between the two
lines of asterisks:
**********************************************************************************
Planners Are Already Moving to Loosen Restraints on the Scope of a Convention:
“Assembly of STATE Legislatures” is a group of legislators planning the Article V
Convention. About FIFTY state legislators met December 9, 2014 in
Washington DC. Notes from this meeting show that (these STATE) lawmakers
1
TABLED a motion to restrict the scope of the Convention to only the subject
matter of the state applications, and also
2
REJECTED
a motion which would have prevented congressmen and senators, federal
judges and governors from serving as delegates to the Convention.
This is an early indication that (EVEN STATE) politicians want to have a more open process and may
want to appoint members of Congress, the US Senate and federal judges to amend the Constitution.
*********************************************************************************
This
proves that even state legislators intend to open up the convention
exactly as everyone has known would happen for 200 years until the most
recently revived push for an Article V convention by the left and a few
unwitting conservatives who have fallen for their FICTIONAL NARRATIVE
ABOUT IT BEING STRICTLY A “CONVENTION OF STATES” — a term used only
loosely once or twice in history to describe what everyone understood to
be a constitutional convention, and which is defined as one in Black’s
Law Dictionary of that era.
The COS position has been that this
convention’s topics would be restricted SOLELY to a few specific
amendments proposed to Congress by the States. During ALL of US
history prior to the very recent advent of The COS Project and other
recently activated groups pushing for an Article V convention, IT HAS
BEEN AN UNQUESTIONED GIVEN that Congress, NOT the states, would control
the selection of delegates, and that such a convention CANNOT be
restrained from considering anything it wishes to consider, even to
proposing the abolition of our current constitution and its replacement
with an entirely new one.
As you see from the above, EVEN STATE LEGISLATORS want people OTHER THAN THEMSELVES to be delegates.
Amongst
MANY other contradictions with the universally accepted views by all
experts of the past 200+ years which the new “COS” re-write of history
claims are true, are these two:
1. The states will control the convention
2.
The convention’s scope will be strictly limited to the amendments the
states had proposed for it in their applications to congress for the
Convention.
From the above, we now see that both of these are 100%
FALSE, as I and countless others have tried to explain to those who are
still under the sway of the false narrative manufactured by the “COS”
advocates via distortion, out-of-context quoting, bald faced untruths,
and false “spin.”
Note that in a private meeting of 50 STATE
LEGISLATORS in Washington DC, where they were preparing what they wish
to do if asked by Congress or permitted by Congress to have a say in
constructing the convention, even the NATIONAL GROUP “The Assembly of
STATE Legislators” wish the convention to have an open agenda, AND they
wish to push for having FEDERAL CONGRESSMEN, SENATORS, AND JUDGES
INCLUDED AS DELEGATES TO THE CONVENTION.
They, too understand the
truth, 100% consistent with the simple language of Article V which gives
the states only TWO powers w/regard to this convention option:
1. To force Congress to call a convention and
2.
To ratify its output ASSUMING THE CONVENTION ITSELF DOES NOT CHANGE
THE RATIFICATION PROCEDURE WHICH IT HAS THE UNQUESTIONABLE AUTHORITY TO
DO.
Why don’t you read the opinions of the Framers as they gave it
themselves, in context, in COUNTLESS places and just TRY to find,
ANYWHERE IN THE 200+ YEARS AFTER 1787, an explanation of Article V that
even remotely agrees with the claims of the very recent “COS” movement’s
revival of this topic? YOU CANNOT BECAUSE IT IS COMPLETELY WRONG AND
FALSE and thus there EXISTS no historical confirmation of their view of
an Article V convention. NO ONE before in all US history has EVER made
the false claims for an Article V convention which the current “COS”
movement makes for it. From the founders themselves onward, EVERYONE
has understood the unquestionable view which contradicts the spin the
“COS” movement has put on the nature of this convention
Here we
now have the Assembly of STATE Legislators discussing what THEY wish if
the convention is called, and it is EXACTLY WHAT THE “COS” LEADERSHIP
HAS BEEN TELLING YOU CANNOT HAPPEN. They want FEDERAL JUDGES and
also MEMBERS OF OUR CORRUPT CONGRESS to be delegates to the convention.
So . . . EVEN IF THE “COS” LEADERSHIP WERE RIGHT — which it most
definitely is NOT — we see that the corrupted state governments would
still choose to do exactly what the “COS” leadership says they will not
do.
All 50 states get funding of one sort or another from the Fed
Gov, and it ranges from about 20% to 45% of each state’s total spending.
Elected state officials, including the Governors and the state
legislators, have thus sold their souls — and the rights of their
citizens — for a mess of pottage. There have been numerous cases of
state legislatures and/or Governors talking big about stopping Fed
intrusion into education, overly burdensome environmental mandates, etc
etc, then caving in and not doing anything about them. Why? Because
the Fed Gov threatens to reduce or end its subsidies, grants, matching
funds, etc etc to the state. That would require the state government
to either cut state programs or raise taxes — AND LOSE THE NEXT
ELECTION. So . . . state governments have become corrupted too.
ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY. They cave in to being in cahoots
with the Fed Gov even when they know it’s wrong, to preserve their own
jobs. And ultimately it’s the people who are also to blame, for WANTING
to participate in the whole scam of our corrupted system — the people
DO throw people out of office if they fail to “bring home the bacon”
from Washington DC. The people’s VALUES have been corrupted. Each
state’s citizens WANT their reps to get money for THEIR state that was
seized by the Fed Gov from OTHER states, and they will NOT re-elect
someone whose principled stand protecting their liberties under the
Constitution leads to a loss in Fed funding. The ultimate problem is
sourced in the altered values of the people themselves, and their
ignorance of where this is all steering us. People no longer
understand their founding documents or sufficiently value their
freedoms, or understand what is necessary to avoid losing their
freedoms.
I’ll bet you will NOT see the above news reported at ANY
“COS”-advocacy site, because just as Rita has deleted two of my
comments here, and just as this is very common practice at MANY COS
websites, blogsites, and FB pages, where the news, the facts, and the
arguments are censored or deleted when they offer too convincing an
argument for the truth, or some fact which provides too-convincing
evidence or proof that their claims are false, SO WILL THEY CENSOR THE
NEWS ABOVE. And I would not be at all surprised if this comment gets
deleted quite promptly, as my prior one was.
I urge you to go to the link above before the information in this comment is again deleted by Rita.
right on
I suspect its not lunacy as much as ego, visions of fame and historical glory and likely promise of financial gain is what is coloring their reason and soundness of judgment. who doesn’t want to be a historical hero? these folk, if this dangerous plan goes forth, will go down in earthly and heavenly history as being responsible for giving over our constitution to the corrupt and apostate.
The most relevant thing to know:
http://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2013/12/09/exposing-the-convention-of-the-states-cos-as-an-article-v-constitutional-convention/
My mind boggles at the sheer lunacy of the sheeple who believe this wouldn’t be a good idea but would rather government become more and more tyrannical.
Did you know that many more conservatives oppose this initiative than support it?
Are you aware of the vehement opposition to a Convention of the States by Tom DeWeese,
Sherriff Richard Mack, American Policy Center, The Roger Sherman Institute, The
Constitution Party, the John Birch Society, Dr. Edwin Vieira, National
Association to Keep and Bear Arms, Kelleigh Nelson, Larry Pratt, Constitution
Ambassadors, Dewey Kidd, Larry Pratt, Phyllis Shalafly, Chris Stearns, Campaign
for Liberty, the VA GOP 3rd Congressional District, Sons of the Revolution, Daughters of the Revolution, many Virginia Tea Party groups including Danville and Mid
Peninsula, and many, many others (and more every day)?
Too many forces sympathetic to international and UN calls to bring all nations under one global constitution (or government) are on board with the Convention of the States. Our constitution and its bill of rights provide ultimate protection against government tyranny. Our original constitution and its bill of rights were devised to restrict government. Globalists and statists hate this document with a passion; as do a good percentage of our elected officials.
To put this document up for amendment is unnecessary. 95% of the ills of our overgrown, too expensive and overly expansive federal government would be brought under control, not through changing the constitution, but by ENFORCING the constitution. How can true conservatives believe that a bi-partisan effort to amend the constitution is going to go the way our founders and our system of government when so many liberal anti-constitutionalist special interest groups are also on board this initiative?
Anna,
Despite your belief otherwise, Congress obeys the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, religiously – and will continue to do so until the language that Patrick Henry warned about is rendered un-stretchable.
I have to strongly disagree, Gary. Congress obeys the will of the special interest groups and their donors. the supreme court obeys past court decisions and those special interests that choose the judges to be nominated. the courts do not go by the constitution either, I’m sure you’ve noticed.
the constitution’s language is not ambiguous. It’s language does not need refining. Congress doesn’t disregard the constitution because the language is unclear. it’s probably the simplest to understand legal document of our age.
Opening this document up to amendment will guarantee the final shredding of its intent to restrict government and protect the rights of the people. Who’s to control what delegates are going to be selected for this convention of the states? and when all is said and done, let’s read Article V to find out what the constitutional directives are for a convention for amendment:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress….”
What did we read? CONGRESS SHALL CALL A CONVENTION for proposing amendments (upon application of the legislatures). Congress will choose the delegates! Our constitution will be in the hands of the most corrupt, ignorant and vile congressional congregation of our age!
there is no way of getting around the fact that these amendments will be in the hands of Congress. And sure, the 3/4 of the state legislatures will need to ratify but why would they not? What sovereignty, what constitutional knowledge, what courage do the state legislatures exhibit today?
Have the state legislatures the knowledge or the courage to stand up to what the ‘federal government’ has declared??? They have no history of doing that, why would they NOT ratify, in the case of ‘bad’ amendments??? Would they really know the difference?
This bunch of lawyers pushing this initiative are smooth talking and convincing as long as they are unchallenged. I sense it is either ego or promise of fame and fortune that urges them forward. I’ve been to enough COS presentations to know they don’t invite any debate – they stifle all questions that may oppose their idea. how is this initiative an initiative of the PEOPLE if the organizers attempt to quell all opposition?
This initiative is reckless (although very, very well funded). And I believe this initiative is funded by powerful groups that hope to use this initiative to finally put an end to our constitution and our system of free government. Whereever this funding is coming from – it is not coming from constitutionalists like you or I.
The Constitution isn’t the problem!!! Amending the Constitution is not the solution.
And Congress is the last place that will reign in their own power. No government once made powerful is going to voluntarily restrict their own power!
It is not special interest groups who are allowed to determine the limits of what Congress can do through legislation, it is the Supreme Court, unless I missed something in Article 3. If the Constitution’s language is not ambiguous, why did so many Anti-Federalist think it was, and how to you explain the mind-boggling legislation that has been justified under the Commerce Clause?
Please explain to me how, if the Commerce Clause is so clear, why the Court believed it justified the federal government telling poor Farmer Filburn he couldn’t grow wheat for his own pigs. If you want, I’ll provide you a list to the amazing things that have been justified under the Commerce Clause and you tell me how you are going to reverse that legislation and return the Commerce Clause to your “simplest to understand” meaning.
“Opening this document up to amendment will guarantee the final shredding of its intent to restrict government.” Hello Anna, earth to Anna, the Constitution no longer restricts the governemnt. It hasn’t for nearly a hundred years. When former Congressman Peter Stark (D-CA) stated that he thought the federal government could do “most anything in this country,” that wasn’t bluster, that was fact. And the “shredding” continues every time the Supreme Court hears a case and will continue to take place until the people decide to put a stop to it. Apparently you’re OK with this continued shredding, I’m not.
George Mason gave us the means to at least limit the shredding: a convention that proposes an amendment that installs term limits on judges. And he gave us the method to return the Commerce Clause to its “pre-shredding” meaning: Article V.
“For my own part I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments
which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be
applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its
powers…” Hamilton, Federalist 85
Gary, when has the Supreme Court determined limits for what is posing as federal government? The Supreme Court has only expanded power to the federal government. What history, what case have you seen where it has limited federal government?
“Earth to Gary!” (My goodness, you’re starting to sound like a lawyer using intimidation and insult to prove your point, my friend.)
If we hope to be IGNORANT and FREE so says Tom Jefferson – we hope for something that never was and never will be.
The constitution is unheeded due to massive ignorance of the constitutional principles of free government by people and those they elect. If this COS initiative had to do with educating the populace and the elected body – we might find some remedy to what ails us.
The populace is ignorant of the Constitution’s intent and its parameters. The supreme courts has obliterated the meaning and intent of the constitution due to the ignorance of both populace and elected officials. It was never the original intent that the Supreme Court would interpret the Constitution – according to Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers 33, it’s the people that must appeal should the federal government overpass the bounds of its authority.
Take the Commerce Clause. The whole point and intent was to promote trade between the states. Supreme Court has deliberately misinterpreted the clause to grant federal government more power to control interstate commerce.
In a more perfect union, the people would have stood up to this blatant misinterpretation through their legislators but due to ignorance the Court has gotten away with constitutional murder.
Just what is a COS going to do to correct this blatant ignorance and in the case of the Supreme Court, their deliberate misinterpretation in order to give federal government more power??? You think this nation can get turned around by a handful of know it all lawyers who believe it is their job to interpret and rewrite the constitution for everyone else? It’s not the job of a handful of lawyers (least of all lawyers!!!) to correct the blatant corruption and apostasy of the Court and the federal government. It is the job of the People and their representatives.
No handful of attorneys, no matter how brilliant, could or will ever take the place of an enlightened citizenry and elected body. When Farris and friends understand that every man, woman and child need to be educated on the intent and principles of the Constitution before this nation can hope to reverse its apostasy, they might have something.
Impossible we might say, regarding the education of every American? We have that capability through public education and public broadcasting! The true intent behind public schooling and broadcasting is to educate – but as you know and I know, these vehicles have been used to indoctrinate and psychologically manipulate the populace, not enlighten us.
This COS initiative will be taken over, like everything else, by the powerful ruling elite – the people with money – rule. There is nothing more detrimental to the future of our nation than to put our Constitution in the hands of the apostate, the corrupt and the vile. Once the ball gets rolling, particularly without an informed populace and elected body – the money powers will win and the original intent and purpose of our constitution (to restrict government and protect the rights of the people) will be obliterated and our ONLY chance to correct, change or alter our own government will be gone forever.
Anna,
As I’m sure you remember, in NIFB v Sebelius the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause was limited to existing Commerce and could not be used to generate Commerce (Obamacare). Not much of a limit, but a limit. But no problem, Congress was allowed in the next breath to tax us for whatever reason under the sun.
Please let’s stop with the shouts of “sky is falling” and step back and explain your plan (not your wish, but your actual play) to restrain the federal government.
John Adams said it best, ”
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”
Our nation is soul sick. We reject the concept of a Creator. We have been taught that it is a God endowed right to take human life! Although American law is based upon biblical principles – our Courts tell us it’s unconstitutional to teach those very principles. We no longer teach that the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God are immutable and eternal and above ALL manmade laws.
No federal action, legislation or initiative can heal soul sickness. Federal action can certain cause and encourage soul sickness by making laws establishing a national religion. In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Secular Humanism was a religion and Congress has passed laws establishing a national religion in direct VIOLATION of the 1st amendment.
Federal action and legislation is using the public school system to dumb down and psychologically manipulate our youth to reject biblical teachings and the concept of divine creation.
What’s the solution?
Ever state legislature needs to take back public education and public information through public broadcasting. Each legislator should know, teach and embrace the fundamentals of free government and promote education of these principles to our youth through public education.
Only after concerted public education initiative would it be safe to amend and clarify language of the constitution because the body of people could be fully engaged.
Amending or clarifying the language of the Constitution will tend to cater to and serve those involved in the amending. If the body of people are engaged in the amending, the initiative will serve the People. This is what we want! If the body of people are not engaged, the amending will serve those who fund and initiate it. That’s what we do not want!
Nice plan. Well, actually not a plan, just a hope and a prayer. Good luck with it.
Talk about a hope and a prayer! It’s a hope and a prayer that the outcome of a constitutional convention (or an Article V Convention or a Convention of the States or whatever name is politically correct) will be what you hope it to be.
On a personal note, Gary, keep up the good work! You are doing a wonderful job in teaching the Constitution and hope you are raising up folk just like you!
God bless!
Thanks. Just committed today to doing a Saturday Seminar on 28 Feb (9am-5:30pm) in Chesapeake, VA. Ya’ll come.
The emphasis here seems to be on the language and scope of the Article but nothing is said about the nature of those who will be authoring the amendments and voting on them. When the Constitution was written there was common virtue and an honor code based on Biblical principles. Many Founders such as Washington, Adams, and others stated that the Republic ‘couldn’t be governed or preserved without a virtuous people.’ My problem is that the people who will craft and vote belong to a culture of post modern relativism and whether State or Federal level, have demonstrated that they vote their own interests first and not that of the people. This cannot be argued without undermining the need for the Convention in the first place.
So please tell me why I should trust anyone in this age to carry this forward for the interest of the People and not for themselves and those that finance their campaigns and or established PAC’s etc.?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7UJF7lPmMA
Here is the excellent analysis written by the conservative Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger. Everyone should read this!
In a letter to the Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly (who opposes a Convention), former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger wrote, “The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. The Convention might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all … A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a Convention…Whatever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments.”
Typo – I meant to say, “Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment…”
This is why we are not calling for a Constitutional Convention. We are calling for an Article V, amendment-proposing convention. But Justice Burger’s facts are wrong. The Confederation Congress didn’t call the 1787 Convention and had no authority under the Articles of Confederation to do so. This is easy to verify, so please take the time to do it. Check the dates. Virginia called the 1787 Convention.
You are arguing semantics. To amend a document is to change it. Are you actually trying to make the claim that an Article V convention could not alter the existing text of the Constitution or its current amendments?
“Check the dates. Virginia called the 1787 Convention.”
Again you are nitpicking details. But if want to be really picky, the delegations from 5 states called for the Constitutional Convention while they were at the Annapolis Convention in 1786. Not just Virginia.
“This is why we are not calling it a Constitutional Convention. We are calling it an Article V, amendment-proposing convention.” There. Fixed that for you.
Rita, time to go check your law dictionary.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, an Article V convention qualifies as two of the three possible scenarios that are DEFINED as a constitutional convention.
I’m afraid on this point, you are arguing with the dictionary.
Please refer to the statement in my article. An Article V Convention, while it is certainly a “convention” that occurs under the auspices of the Constitution and can, for that reason be described as “constitutional,” it is not the same thing as what most people think of or mean when they use the phrase “constitutional convention.” In other words, it is a different creature from a convention called purely pursuant to the states’ individual sovereignty. It is a convention vested solely with the power to propose amendments under the procedure prescribed in Article V.
Rita, using different phrases to deny definitional intent is a common trick of attorneys, but in the real world of common and simple language, the debate is 1) whether the constitution needs amendment and 2) how will a convention be kept ‘sovereign’ by state? when the clear language of Article V gives Congress the authority to call a convention; not the states.
Yet, according to the dictionary, IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
And, as a convention “vested solely with the power to propose amendments”, is there any constitutionally-defined limit to the power to amend?
Yes. The states shall not, without their consent, be deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate.
Any other limits defined by the Constitution?
No. And that one limit has already been violated by the passage of the 17th Amendment, without the consent of every state.
Rita, please cite the language of Article V which justifies this oft-made and never supported assertion.
Sorry but your argument is not a particularly strong one regarding what is the concern of many regarding how the justifications behind the convening of a Article 5 convention is not “process” bound by originating intent (which you mention only in passing but fail to expound upon). I believe that most people who are at unease with this approach are fully aware of the distinction between creating or modifying new articles versus ratification and bolding the word NEVER is hardly a cogent rebuttal as to why this concern should be dismissed out of hand, after all few believed that it was realistic to expect Ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment until it dawned on them January 16, 1919 that a glass of wine at dinner or a beer after work with friends was no longer an option open to them. Its also rather naïve in today’s mass media environment to underestimate its willingness and power to shape leftist political agenda items through outright misrepresentations and lies. It is a powerful influencer and one that is barely represented by those espousing a constitutional perspective. But putting the ratification issue aside it is still just a bad strategy. Finally, I see you are clearly an individual with an anti-judicial cause and that is fine but its been my experience that to win individuals to your point of view refraining from being self righteous and avoiding characterizations labeling those who disagree with your position as nothing more then poor misguided individuals who “choose to cower in fear” may not be the approach to win you many converts, in fact it sounds vaguely familiar to how progressives conduct arguments. I encourage all Virginians to reject this stated approach and for the general assembly to remove it from consideration.
Dear Lawrence: Lets hear about your plan to save our country. Best Rgards, Alan
Don’t believe The Bull Elephant ask me for a article on my ideas they asked Ms. Dunaway. But thanks for what I’m sure is your sincere interest.
Lawrence: Thank you for the sincere non answer – answer. Alan
The answer Lawrence gave you is echoed by Jefferson: “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. They are the only sure reliance of liberty.”
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be.”
Without solving public ignorance of the principles of liberty and the limits of power prescribed by the Constitution, we will never be a free people.
No amendment to the Constitution can solve that. A solution that does not solve the root of the problem is not really a solution.
Dreams of trying to keep up and solve with words, the consequences of the ignorant electing the deceitful.
Educate the public, find good people, and elect them to office.
Thank you for an informative article. I support the Convention of States for all the reasons you listed.
Thank you!
Rita, you make the claim right off the bat that your background is in Constitutional Law, then you say you are going to “set the record straight” on what you claim to be misinformation. But all you do is argue semantics about what to call the convention, then tell us what you would like to see come out of said convention. The problem is, YOU and your fellow supportes of a Constitutional Convention WILL NOT be delgates to any such convention.
By the wording of Article V, a convention to amend the constitution would NOT be by the people, of the people, and for the people. It would by by the POLITICIANS, of the POLITICIANS, and FOR the POLITICIANS.
The exect wording of Article V is as follows:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
So the politicians in the State Legislatures ask the politicians in Congress to call a convention to amend the Constitution. Then the politicians in the State Legislatures vote to ratify those changes. I don’t see anywhere in the above text where the PEOPLE get to decide on these things, do you??
Furthermore, if you want to argue semantics. It is NOT a “Convention of States.” There is nothing in the written text of Article V that says anything about the convention being a convention of states. Conrgess gets to call the convention, and Congress can determine the time, place, and structure of the convention, including who gets to attend.
You can point to all the precedents and historical text you want, but NONE of it has the force of law. Since we have never had an Article V convention, there is NO legal standard or benchmark to follow. All we have is the plain text of the Constitution to follow.
Oh, you can try to challenge a decision of Congress in the calling of a convention, but guess where that will be decided? In the Supreme Court. Those same 5 judges you say we need to change the Constitution to get control of will be the ones deciding if you get your way.
“38 states (the requirement under Article V) would never ratify a weakening of the Second Amendment.”
You are deluding yourself here. The only thing propping up the spines of some of the politicians who pay lip service to gun rights is the fact that the second amendment is there to back them up. Give them the opportunity to remove it, or change it to allow tighter gun cotrols and they will JUMP at the chance.
Remember, the people don’t get to vote on ratification. The politicians do.
Rita, I don’t doubt that you have good intentions. But the plain fact is that you want to put all of our hard earned rights into the hands of the very politicians you are trying to stop. You are risking all of our futures on a scheme that is unteseted, undefined, and never been tried before (with good reason), when all you need to do to fix the problem is to STOP ELECTING BAD PEOPLE TO OFFICE.
If we took all the energy and effort that has gone into trying to open Pandora’s Box into educating people, finding good candidates, and electing them to office, imagine how much closer we could be towards actually achieveing the goals you, and I, would like achieve?
Our system of government does involve elected officials, whether you like it or not. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that the key to restraining government power was to make “ambition counteract ambition.” That is exactly what an Article V Convention does. It uses the natural self-interest of our state representatives to counteract the ambition of federal officials who have been heretofore unrestrained.
And we didn’t make up the term “Convention of States.” The Virginia General Assembly used that terminology when it filed the very first application for an Article V Convention to propose the Bill of Rights. That ended up pretty well. The Supreme Court later adopted the same term to apply to this process that is–beyond reasonable dispute–a state-led, state-directed, state-determined process.
Read your history. The Bill of Rights was not created nor proposed through a convention. They were introduced by James Madison in the First Congress. Congress approved them and sent them to the states for ratification. Madison did so that way specifically to avoid another convention. From wikipedia:
“Though Madison had originally opposed a Bill of Rights, he had gradually come to support one in the course of ratification debates. By taking the initiative to propose amendments himself through the Congress, he hoped to preempt a second Constitutional Convention that might have undone the difficult compromises of 1787: a second convention would open the entire Constitution to reconsideration and risk dissolving the federal Government. Writing to Jefferson, he stated, “The friends of the Constitution, some from an approbation of particular amendments, others from a spirit of conciliation, are generally agreed that the System should be revised. But they wish the revisal to be carried no farther than to supply additional guards for liberty.””
You can check the source yourself by checking “James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights,” by Richard Labunski. So you see, even Madison knew that an Article V convention was a bad idea, because the entire Constitution would be up for amendment and change.
Not to embarrass you, but just to set the record straight: Virginia did apply for a convention to propose the Bill of Rights in 1788. Here’s an excerpt from that very first application:
“The anxiety with which our countrymen press for the accomplishment of this important end, will ill admit of delay. The slow forms of Congressional discussion and recommendation, if, indeed, they should ever agree to any change, would, we fear, be less certain of success. Happily for their wishes, the Constitution hath presented an alternative, by admitting the submission to a convention of the States. To this, therefore, we resort as the source from whence they are to derive relief from their present apprehensions.
We do, therefore, in behalf of our constituents, in the most earnest and solemn manner, make this application to Congress, that a convention be immediately called, of deputies from the several States, with full power to take into their consideration the defects of this Constitution that have been suggested by the State Conventions, and report such amendments thereto as they shall find best suited to promote our common interests, and secure to ourselves and our latest posterity, the great and unalienable rights of mankind.”
You’re not embarrassing me at all. Here is what you originally wrote:
“The Virginia General Assembly used that terminology when it filed the very first application for an Article V Convention to propose the Bill of Rights. That ended up pretty well.”
In that statement you imply that the bill of rights was a product of an Article V convention, do you not? You’re “That ended up pretty well,” comment is meant to convey the idea that we have already had an Article V convention and that it was limited to the proposed bill of rights, and that it went off without a hitch. Is that not the impression you were trying to make?
It is also interesting to note that on June 27, 1788, the Virginia Convention to ratify the Constitution also proposed a Bill of Rights (they had about 20 amendments), to be considered by the first US Congress:
“MR. Wythe reported, from the Committee appointed, such amendments to the proposed Constitution of Government for the United States, as were by them deemed necessary to be recommended to the consideration of the Congress which shall first assemble under the said Constitution, to be acted upon according to the mode prescribed in the fifth article thereof”
My response to you was that the Bill of Rights that was voted on and ratified by the states was NOT the product of Virginia’s call for a Convention. They were offered by James Madison, whose proposed amendments were taken up, amended, revised, and finally voted on by the House and Senate of the First Congress.
I certainly hope you are not disputing how the Bill of Rights came into being,
Be that as it may, the term, “Convention of States” is STILL not found in the text of Article V, and is STILL not binding on the Congress that would call a proposed Convention, nor is it binding on the Supreme Court that would interpret Article V.
No, I did not intend to imply that the Bill of Rights resulted from an Article V Convention. The point was that the terminology “convention of states” came from Virginia’s application for an Article V Convention. I do believe that application (which prompted Congress to act) had a wonderful result!
Actually, the application did not prompt Congress to act. After the Constitution was ratified, James Madison was gerrymandered into an unfavorable district and was opposed by James Monroe. Madison was able to win a close election after making a campaign promise to introduce the Bill of Rights in the first US Congress.
“It uses the natural self-interest of our state representatives to counteract the ambition of federal officials”~~Is that a joke? The natural self-interest of our state representatives has them taking fed $$$ at an average of over 35% of every state budget in the country. And you are going to trust state legislators to cut off the spigot?
Rita….seriously.
Where in Article V does it say the states determine anything other than petitioning Congress to call a convention? The states do not “call.” Most states have adopted Common Core and expanded Medicaid and accepted federal Stimulus dollars. About a third of state budgets come from the Feds. How likely are they to “rein in” anything? State legislators probably would like term limits because they could run for higher office faster without defeating an incumbent, but taxpayers would foot the bill for many more retirement plans! Sadly, states are not exercising their rights under the Tenth Amendment. Start there and we will see how well the states can be trusted! And Wolf-PAC already has their state applications passed in three states, the same number Convention of States had passed. Wolf-PAC wants all elections tax funded to remove “corruption.” Imagine the Feds doling out campaign money to conservative candidates? Just like the IRS treated the Tea Parties?
What does Article V say? Here is the whole paragraph: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
That’s all folks. Nothing more. No where does it guarantee that states will have any part in how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Where will it take place? Will delegates have to vote as a state or as individuals? How many delegates will there be? How much will they get paid? Can Congress appoint themselves as delegates? Are the penalties for a rouge delegate? Etc.
This idea that we shouldn’t worry about opening up our Constitution to change it because it will take 3/4 to ratify is not comforting based on how uninformed the public is about the Constitution. Three-fourths of the states requirement of Article V already has failed to prevent undesirable amendments from being ratified such as the 16th Amendment (income tax), the 17th Amendment (direct election of senators), and the 18th Amendment (prohibition).
In your list of Convention supporter there are few missing such as: George Soros, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Code Pink, Sierra Club, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Green Party, Humanist Community, MoveOn.org, New Progressive Alliance, People For A New Society and multiple Occupy Wallstreet groups from around the country. A more complete list can be seen at:https://movetoamend.org/organizations
There is a lot of money pushing this Convention and there is no money in stopping it. Conservatives can’t even get a conservative speaker of the House or Senate in D.C. or Virginia’s Legislature, what makes us think that even if the states were allowed to appoint delegates that they would appoint conservatives to amend the Constitution? The most liberal Republicans, the establishment leadership and the Democrats would be chosen. Do you seriously think they would send a Bob Marshall or Mike Farris to rewrite it? We can’t even out-maneuver liberals within our own party when we’ve had a landslide election to Congress! And much of this will be settled in court – the Supreme Court – the same court that allowed Obamacare, which is clearly illegal. But you’re asking us to trust that THIS time we’ll prevail. I for one won’t take that chance.
This isn’t about doing a “re-write” of the Constitution. It’s about proposing amendments to the existing Constitution pursuant to the constitutional process in Article V.
The Constitution also does not state that in a criminal jury trial, guilt must be established “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But that standard is so enshrined in law and precedent that it was not necessary to be specified.
There is abundant precedent for the operation of interstate conventions–which is precisely why it was not necessary for the drafters to spell out every detail in the text of Article V. There is NO precedent–NOT ONE–to back up your position, but plenty to back up mine.
While you and others hypothesize about the potential for rogue delegates to co-opt a constitutional process and create the first-ever “runaway convention,” there is a very real runaway federal government in Washington, D.C. destroying our country. What do YOU propose to do about it?
Thank you for the information. The uni-party is destroying our country. I keep waiting for those opposed to the Article V amendment process to come up with a better idea.
Asked and answered multiple times. Educate the public, find good people, and elect them to office. We could use some help, though.
The better idea is to EDUCATE our elected officials and educate and awaken our populace on not only the constitution but the principles it is based upon. Ignorance is the forerunner of tyranny. We have a so-called ‘supreme’ court that has declared speaking of a divine Creator as “unconstitutional” for God’s sake!
Trusting a bunch of smooth talking lawyers to take the place of an educated populace and educated elected officials is lunacy. In a group of people, today, how many would even agree on the existence of a Creator???
Do you we realize that without a Creator, there are NO inalienable rights and there is NO foundation for free government. You think you’re going to protect these ancient immutable principles in a group of lawyers, liberals, globalists, atheists, war mongers and the like???
I called Senator Black’s office about what his solution would be. He suggested staggered six year terms for Supreme Court Justices so they either follow the law or voters can kick them to the curb. I haven’t heard from the others yet.
Why do COS advocates want a reason to not jump off a bridge?
“there is a very real runaway federal government in Washington, D.C. destroying our country”
Yes, there is. And you want to give them our founding document and a red pen to scratch out the things the don’t like and add in new things that will take away even more of our freedoms.
Just step back for a minute and think about your position for a second. You complain about the abuses and overreaches of government by corrupt politicians. So your solution is to give these very same corrupt politicians the ability to re-write the Constitution of the United States??? In what fantasy land do you believe that this would produce a GOOD outcome???
“What do YOU propose to do about it?”
VOTE BAD POLITICIANS OUT OF OFFICE AND ELECT GOOD ONES!!! And it would be a lot easier to do without having to waste time, money, and energy fighting with people who are supposed to be allies.
Pardon–but you simply don’t understand the process. I would refer you to September 15th of the 1787 Constitutional Convention for further study. The whole point of the Article V Convention mechanism is to allow the states to bypass Congress in achieving needed amendments to restrain federal power. And that’s exactly what it does.
Good luck with your voting plan. I hope you succeed. But even “good” elected officials can’t reverse Supreme Court precedent that has opened huge loopholes in the limitations on federal power.
The role of the states is clearly outlined in Article V. It says that the states can call for a convention, and the states must ratify the product of the convention before it becomes part of the Constitution. It does NOT state anywhere in Article V that the states must be represented in that convention.
You keep wanting to point to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or interstate conventions as examples of how an Article V convention should be run, but that has no bearing here. You can’t have a precedent for something that has never happened, and those precedents have no binding legal force. Just because something was done that way before, it doesn’t bind Congress from deciding how to create an Article V convention.
I know you don’t agree with me, but who are you going to complain to if I am right? The Supreme Court. You will have to ask the very same people who have “opened huge loopholes in the limitations on federal power” to interpret the ambiguous language of Article V that simply states that Congress shall call “a convention.” These are the same people that looked at the words, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,” and somehow interpreted that to mean that the states and the federal government should have the power to put “reasonable” regulations on peoples ability to keep and bear arms. You want to trust those people to interpret Article V the way you want?
“But even “good” elected officials can’t reverse Supreme Court precedent that has opened huge loopholes in the limitations on federal power.”
Oh yes they can, because a good President can nominate good judges who can be confirmed by good Senators who can then REVERSE previous rulings made by bad judges. Past rulings do not prevent future couts from reversing bad legal precedent. AND my way is much safer, because it doesn’t put the entire Constitution at risk.
Good legislators can also fashion laws to correct many Supreme Ct. missteps. If they misinterpret a law, change the law to compensate.
Another danger of a convention, is that there is no accountability for whomever the delegates are. There’s no answering to voters as is the case when Congress proposes amendments.
Article V does not authorize states to “call” a convention, legislatures only apply. …and legislatures can be bypassed by a state ratifying convention. When it comes to amending the U.S. Constitution in Article V, the state takes a subordinate (or at least collective) role.
I’m replying to Rita, but I don’t want her to get a notice of it or she may delete it the way she’s deleted other of my comments. Making the comment here may cause her to overlook it.
She’s the one who does not understand things — even with her “background in the constitution AND after her “over a year” of studying/researching Article V. She has a lot of key things PRECISELY REVERSED. She apparently deleted my comment refuting her argument about interstate conventions, and then the one showing that the state legislators are ALREADY showing their desire to have members of the House & Senate as well as federal judges as delegates to an Article V convention. Some “interstate convention” THAT’S gonna be, huh? Either she’s ignorant, or she’s lying about what she knows to be the truth on this topic, or else she needs a remedial high school course in reading comprehension if after over a year of studying Article V she still hasn’t even a CLUE as to its basic nature.
1. There were all kinds of interstate conventions on lesser issues. Calling “conventions” to resolve border disputes, navigation rights, water rights on rivers that traversed a few states, etc were common. That is undeniable. However, NONE of these are precedents for an Article V convention, which would unquestionably be a constitutional convention. Rita is baiting and switching by mislabeling and misunderstanding (accidentally on purpose?).
Black’s Law Dictionary of the time defines ANY convention called by ANY branch of the federal gov’t or by state governments for the purpose of altering or considering changes to the constitution as a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. The definition of a constitutional convention is one which gathers for the purpose of considering ANY aspect of the Constitution, PERIOD. And this is not an arbitrary choice of definition. It is the only possible definition consistent with the Declaration of Independence’s assertion of the very rights which justify this nation’s existence, and justify the legal validity of our Constitution.
2. For over 200+ years NO ONE would even have DREAMED of considering an Article V convention to be anything but a constitutional convention. It was only with the advent of the recent COS Project and other groups calling for an Article V convention that the term COS was used, PRECISELY TO ENABLE THE BOGUS DOUBLE TALK RITA IS ENGAGING IN. The Framers would be rolling over in their graves if they heard the totally off the wall drivel she’s spouting.
An Article V convention has NEVER been called. So technically there is NO precedent for it. Actually, there is. The Cponstitutional Convention of 1787, which I’ll get to below. This is true despite the COS leaderships claim that that convention was called by the states, which is not really correct.
3. Notice that Rita and the COS leadership, et al, are trying to have it both ways. This results from the self-contradiction of their own fictional narrative about the entire process of an ALLEGED “Article V Convention of States.” They simply made up that term for the first time in history and wove a fictional story around it by re-writing actual history and re-defining terms long understood to mean one thing into having another meaning, and adding more tall tales as problems with their scenario surfaced which needed a fix that actual history could obviously not supply. THE WHOLE VISION OF ARTICLE V AND ITS CONVENTION IS SOMETHING INVENTED JUST A VERY FEW YEARS AGO, THAT WOULD BE UNRECOGNIZABLE BY THE FRAMERS. IT IS A FICTION MADE UP FROM WHOLE CLOTH, WITH A TINY SPRINKLING OF TRUTH AND AND TON OF SPIN AND MISDIRECTION BY EVERY MEANS UNDER THE SUN.:
A) When WE say that the 1787 convention is the only precedent for an Article V convention, one of the “rebuttals” to that is that the 1787 convention was called by the states, not under the constitution of the time. This is not exactly true. Many of the states did call FOR a convention, but to “call for” and to “call” a convention are NOT the same thing. To “call for” is to suggest that there is a need for a convention, and to express the opinion that one is needed, and that hey, someone ought to … ought to . uh, er . . .hmm …. CALL ONE!! To “call” a convention is to take responsibility for implementing one. To attend to the details of creating/arranging one. To fix a time and place, to inform the potential participants of them, to select the delegates to it, or to devise a method for selecting its delegates, to decide how its chairman will be selected, or whether he should be selected by the delegates themselves, ETC ETC.
One must recognize the political climate of the time, how dangerously unstable it is, how strong those are who’d weaken the Constitution and individual and states’ rights
That’s dead wrong, Rita.
Read Madison’s notes on the Convention for Sept. 15, 1787. For someone who has a background in Constitutional Law and who has studied Article V for OVER a full year, I’m amazed at how perfectly your conclusions mimic, almost verbatim, the precise “analysis” of the canon of the COS advocates — which also contradict what was universally taken as the obvious “given” by all constitutional authorities for at least the first 100 years after 1787. It’s gotta be the greatest coincidence since the solar system was formed.
Maybe you are just an extremely slow reader and after your year-plus study of Article V, you only got partway through the day of Sept. 15, 1787.
You are making an error similar to Rob Natelson’s when he cited a 1922 court case as support for his false claim that when Congress calls a convention under Article V, it is not performing a federal function. In fact, that decision DISPROVED Natelson’s claim, and that was the ONLY support he had for the assertion that the Article V allows the states to circumvent interference from Congress. What the court judgement said was the precise opposite of what Natelson claims it said. The Supreme Court in Leser vs Garnett not only affirmed that Congress was performing a federal function, but that the unusual aspect of Article V was that in applying to Congress for a convention, THE STATES WERE THE ONES ACTING UNCHARACTERISTICALLY — THE STATES WERE ACTUALLY PERFORMING A FEDERAL FUNCTION TOO.
This fact alone refutes your contention.
But you also have totally mis-characterized what went on at the 1787 convention on Sept 15. Have you read ALL of Madison’s notes on the convention? Or was your “over a year” of study of Article V insufficent to cover all related details about that Article’s single (though admittedly long) sentence?
Here is the truth, and how it has been turned precisely on its head — VERY coincidentally I’m sure — by BOTH the COS leadership AND Rita’s own (presumably) independent and unbiased (and VERY long) research on this topic:
1. NONE of the framers (except 3, who left the 1787 Convention on Sept 15 in a huff and refused to return on the 17th for the signing of its final product) regarded amendments as a useful or meaningful tool for restraining government abuse of power. They gave us quite a few other tools far more effective and far less risky. Thomas Jefferson was very strong for nullification, and time has proven him correct, which should be no surprise. (He was not really a “framer,” being out of the country during the convention, but he was a founder, and he did write the Declaration, whose espoused principles the Constitution was intened to implement in practice.)
2. There were three delegates who took the same view as the COS leadership, and today the COS leadership is falsely attributing that view to the delegates as a whole in order to prove its false claims about Article V, as we’ll soon see.
3. The 3 delegates — Mason, Reynolds, and Gerry — wanted ANOTHER amendment option added to Article V. Prior to Sept 15, Article V had been written with ONLY ONE amendment option. Amendments were intended for the correction of any errors, omissions or oversights by the convention. As Madison said, they were neither omniscient nor infallible, and as time went on, undoubtedly a set of circumstances here or there would arise in the future which would not have been foreseen or properly dealt with by the Contitution as they’d written it, and some adjustment would be necessary to correct the Constitution’s inadequate ability to deal properly with those unanticipated circumstances. So . . . the Constitution might be more acceptable to the states if there were added to it an Article explicitly allowing for Amendment, in order BOTH to permit needed revisions/corrections AND to communicate that the delegates were well aware of their own fallibility and lack of omniscience.
4. Article V was written up, containing ONLY ONE method for amending the constitution: When 2/3 of each house of Congress agreed that an amendment was necessary or desirable, then they could propose it to the states, and if 3/4 of the states also agreed by ratifying it, then it would be adopted and tacked on to the existing Constitution. However, this was not satisfactory to Mason, Reynolds and Gerry. These 3 men took the minority view which after more than 200 years has only recently been resurrected by the latest push for an ARticle V convention. The Mason contingent saw amendments as a means for controlling a corrupt Congress or Fed Gov, and wanted another option added to Article V which would enable the states to bypass Congress altogether. This was NOT looked upon with favor by the other delegates. It was their belief that Congress ought to be involved. Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, and virtually all other delegates agreed. Remember: controlling a corrupt or tyrannical gov’t is a very important job for a constitution, but its PRIMARY job is to come up with a means by which a government can effectively provide for the security of men’s rights — ie, to function well in doing the right thing. Next priority is the make sure that if/as/when it FAILS to do so, a remedy should be provided.. The vast majority of the delegates felt that Congress needed to be involved in the amendment process for these reasons:
A) It was involved in dealing with the FEDERAL cnstitution regularly as part of its normal function and was more familiar with the practical aspects of conforming to the constitution, so it would be able to make wiser decisions from its greater experience in dealing with Constitutional issues.
B) It would also be more likely to spot the need for amendments for this same reason, and more likley to know what amendment language, etc, would actually best solve the flaw that needed rectifying by amendment.
C) The state legislatures were pretty reliably less “deliberative” or statesmanlike than Congress, and more susceptible to the kind of “momentary fevers of passion” which plague pure democracies, abhorred by all the founders. If the states had their own method IMMUNE FROM ANY CHECK BY CONGRESS, we might get all kinds of looney, passion-of-the-moment amendments on a regular basis which would violate rights, or work to the long term detriment of the nation, while also causing our Supreme Law to become cimbersome and full of unnecessary picayiune details about minor matters, and changed every week (well, that’s a bit of hyperbole).
IE, the current COS position on what amendments are for was taken ONLY by 3 delegates. The rest of the delegates opposed the COS view.
5. The 3 dissenters were very adamant. The deliberations on Article V were set aside for later reconsideration.
6. The end of the convention was fast approaching, and on the last day of deliberation, one of the details to be cleaned up or nailed down was that pesky Article V impasse. The 3 dissenters were SO adamant and SO impassioned in their quest for another amendment option that it was decided to COMPROMISE with them. As matters stood, the states were completely “reactive” in amending the constitution. The Congress took the initiative, and the Constitution offered no means fotr the states even to propose amendments. So it was decideed that as a gesture of compromise to the 3 musketeers, a compromise was suggested. It was the convention option. What it did was give the states the power to FORCE Congress to act on an idea for amendment that the states wanted. This, it was felt by the majority, was a concession to the Mason “gang of 3.” However, it did NOT allow the states to bypass Congress altogether. This was the concession to the rest of the delegates.
So . . THE COS LEADERS ARE TOTALLY MISREPRESTING THE FACTS WHEN THEY SAY “THE FRAMERS PUT IT IN, SO THEY LIKED IT AND WE MUST FEEL OBLIGED TO USE IT” This is thus the 2nd lie the COS advocates tell us. First was that amendments were intended for the purpose of controlling a corrupt gov’t — WRONG. They were simple editing tools, a means for correcting errors of the framers, or their oversights or omissions. Second lie is that the framers were PRO-ACTIVE in giving us the convention option. ALSO FALSE. They added that as a halfway measure toward what Mason and his gang of 3 wanted, as a bone reluctantlhy tossed to that tiny minority just to preserve the peace and good will amongst all the framers, because those 3 had been SO intransigent about their desire for a COS-like amendment procedure..
7. On Sept 15, when Mason, Gerry and Reynolds saw the proposed added language to Article V — the convention option — Mason in particular hit the roof. He called it a subterfuge and an insult. He was FURIOUS. It was this Article V issue which made him say that he would cut off his right hand before signing the Constitution with that version of Article V in it. He and his 2 pals actually got up and threatened to leave. In other words, ALL THE DELEGATES WERE IN AGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT ARTICLE V SAID, AND WHAT THE AGREED ON WAS THAT IT MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT SAY WHAT THE COS LEADERSHIP CLAIMS IT DOES. ALL AGREED THAT IT DID NOT GIVE THE STATES THE POWER TO AVERT CONGRESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT IN THAT SECOND, ADDED, CONVENTION PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT.
The controversy was NOT over what Article V said. It was that the Mason contingent did not LIKE what it said, IE, the “super-minority” of only 3 delegates WISHED FOR an amendment proat procedure. That procedure — NOT offered and NOT intended — was the very one the COS leadership suddenly, a few years ago, RE-WROTE HISTORY WITH MASSIVE SPIN IN ORDER TO CLAIM THAT WAS IN FACT THE MEANING OF THE CONVENTION OPTION WHEN IN FACT THE TRUTH WAS THE PRECISE OPPOSITE.
IE, Article V, like the rest of the Constituion, is in simple languate which — SURPIRSE TO THE COS LIARS — actually DOES mean exactly what it says. Sorry to disappoint the COS advocates that their spin and their reference to all kinds of manufactured claims about what was meant and intended and common practice and so on ad nauseum in order to twist the simple and straightorward language of Article V into meaning the opposite of what it does mean, just isn’t going to work, fellas. You lose, Facts are facts, and spin is lies.
8. The Mason contingent was so enamored of the same view the current COS people adopt, that they just found it hard to believe the rest of the delegates couldn’t see their point. They thought a method for amending the constitution by the states with ZERO interference or involvement of Congress was so essential and so necessary that SOMEONE else present had to see it. What did NOT occur to them was the fact that by decoupling the states from congress, while that MIGHT be of SOME help in the case of a corrupt congress, would inflict upon the nation the chronic and routine problem of an ever-changing, short-range vision overtaking the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, turning it into a chameleon which changed its color ever 5 minutes, and wreaking havoc on the foundation of our legal system at frequent intervals, and subjecting the staid and stable foundation of the law on a slippery unreliable frequently changing basis.
Mason was stunned, enraged, and felt insulted. He actually said that this was a trick perpetrated on him by whoever came up with that form of “compromise,” unable to see that it was a genuine attempt at compromise which was willing to go only so far. He demanded a vote, seemingly in disbelief that the entire body of the remaining delegates was “against him.” He asked if everyone else present was actually opposed to giving the states a method for amendment which totally excluded Congress, rather than this compromise procedure which would clearly be subverted if/when the Congress became truly corrupt. A vote OF THE OTHER DELEGATES was taken, and it was UNANIMOUS for Article V as they’d changed it by adding the compromise convention option. Mason and his 2 friends left in a huff and did not return on the 17th, refusing to sign the Colnstitution.
SUMMARY
So, we see the truth now, and it is not friendly to the COS leadership’s fiction.
It is very obvious to anyone who is actually familiar with what happened at the Confention on Sept 15, that the COS Project leadership is trying to ressurect the kind of Article V that Mason, Reynolds, and Gerry WANTED but which was SHOT DOWN BY THE UNANIMOUS VOTE OF ALL THE OTHER DELEGATES AGAINST THE DESIRES OF THE MASON MINI-CONTINGENT.
It is hard for me to understand how Rita can have studied and researched Article V — which is ONE SINGLE SENTENCE — for OVER a year, and then actually refer to what happened on Sept 15th, and GET THE FACTS PRECISELY REVERSED FROM THE TRUTH. I am astounded by that. Either she missed something, or stared out with COS-colored glasses and got a phenomenally distorted vision of things, or she played hookey from her studies most of the time.and asked Meckler or Farris or Natelson to help her brush up after a year or more of wasting her own time. I don’t want to say she’s lying, but this is just incredible.
EVERYONE AT THE CONVENTION AGREED AT THE TIME THAT THE CURRENT COS VIEW WAS THE REVERSE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. EVERYONE, BOTH THE MASON CONTINGENT OF 3 AND THE REST OF THE DELEGATES WHO VOTED AGAINST MASON UNDERSTOOD THAT ARTICLE V MEANT EXACTLY WHAT IT SAID AND NEEDED NO SPIN OR OTHER EXPLANATIONS WHICH ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT IT SAYS.
The “convention” option was intended to pass control FROM the states TO Congress the minute the 2/3 of applications for a convention call was reached. There was never a question that THAT’S exactly what it said AND WHAT IT MEANT. Why else would Mason and pals storm out and refuse to sign the Constitution. It’s established fact that what they wanted was a method which they did NOT get, and that’s why they stormed out. And what was it that they did NOT get from ARticle V and its convention option compromise? Answer:
They did NOT get exactly, precisely, what the COS leaderdhip is now claiming the DID GET..
SUDDENLY, over 200 years after the event, the COS leadership has discovered that every single one of the eyewitnesses to the event were wrong,that Madison’s notes on the conventin were wrong, that what the language of Article V says is NOT what it means for various convoluted reasons no one has ever heard of before the advent of the recent COS Project. — and they expect the world to swallow the propaganda that they, the COS geniuses — have a secret time machine that took them back to the convention, PLUS a secret mind reading machine, which enables them to go back there and disprove everyting the delegates said, and everything about the way they understood the meaning of Article V’s lnaguage, and everyting they intended to accomplish by Article V. The COS leadership know so much, their knowledge trumps not only what everyone has always known to be the case for over 200 years, but even what was clearly understood by all parties who were present at the convention itself on Sept 15 and were eyewitnesses to the events which transpired there.
The COS leadership WANTS their fictional narrative to be true. It is false. They WISH that the Masoin/Reynolds/Gerry view had prevailed at the convention. It did not — it went down in flames as the other delegates UNANIMOUSLY shot down in no uncertain terms the wishes of the Mason contingent which were the identical wishes of COS today.
But wishing won’t make it so. Undaunted, the COS leadership thinks spin, lies, propaganda, clever marketing, and today’s general ignorance of the Constitution and its history will make it so, since their wishes can’t do the job without assistance.
Rita, I hope the COS leaders and others aren’t too hard on you. You’ve given it your best shot, and did a pretty good job of it. But maybe this will teach you a few valuable lessons. The truth will out. Wishing won’t make it so. Lying and spin won’t make it so either. And counting on the ignorance of others for your own success is a very risky business. Indeed, counting on the ignorance of others to assure your own success is the identifying mark of charlatanism.
When I first became acquainted with the Aricle V debate, I was momentarily on the side of the COS view. I quickly realized its flaws. I got a queasy feeling from the obvious tricks they were playing with their words, which I think many poeple might not have the experienced to have picked up on. Every time I uncovered another verified fact, the COS leadership dropped another notch in my estimation.
I fairly promptly realized they were wrong. For a while I thought they were just misinformed. As time went forward and I saw more arguments which were less believable and more obviously either wishful thinking or plain stupidity, I was forced to conclude that being a COS leader required a really special brand of stupidity. It was very frustrating to try and fight their imperviousness even to simple and obvious common sense. I resisted going much further than that for some time.
At this point, having read stuff by Natelson, Bob Menges, Mark Meckler, Farris, and others, I have been forced, reluctantly, to drop my estimation of those behind The COS Project and the other pro-Article V convention groups to an even lower notch.
It is my considered opinion that they have to know what they are doing. Ther is just too much of a stretch in too many instances to believe otherwise.
They are liars.
That’s my opinion and I have no doubts. I am not talking about the rank and file who trust and believe them, though I criticize many of their dupes for NOT checking the facts out with an open mind. But thje leaders of the movement? There may be a few exceptions here and there, but by and large they can’t possibly believe in the tripe they are purveying to the susceptible.
They are con men, who count on people’s trust in them, cultivate that trust, and then use it to mislead and harm them.
They are in my opinion despicable. Ordinarily, I would not get this personal about it. But this situation is so grave, and the consequences so potentiall severe, that I’m pulling no punches.;
The COS Project is the product of evil minds, intent on an evil agenda. They have to be working very hard to create the kind of complex, strained lies they do create. They can’t possibly have so much familiarity with the facts, and yet always happen to overlook the ones which bust their case to smithereens. They have to know what they are doing.
It may be an error for me to get into being judgemental. Maybe this will turn off some people who are on the fence and turn them toward the liars of the COS. If so, so be it.
Facts are facts and only the truth is true. It is wrong to make decisions about the truth based on wishful thinking. It is just as wrong to make them on the basis of thiniking you DON’T like. Anyone who does not like my expression of my own considered opinion that the leadership of the COS movement consists of a great many people committed to what they know is a huge lie, well, that’s OK if you don’t like my doing that. But if you are going to base your decision on that, then you beling on their side because you are making the same mistake as the wishful thinkers.
My wish has always been that the liars and con men and charlatans of this world would just go away. But I know that’s not gonna happen The COS Project is just the latest proof of it. I have to express my opinion, because it is my belief that the potential for harm, longer run, by these liars is actually, and very literally, far in excess of anything Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini or Castro, or Pol Pot or Mao ever did. The future existence of the miracle called the USA is at issue, and as a consequence, so is the future of western civilization. The risks of remaining silent are too high, and so is the cost of being a coward. I will not forgive myself if the bad guys at The COS Project win this battle, and I had not done my best to try and stop them.
I wrote the paragraph above NOT to the COS leadership but to those who are still under their sway. The COS leadership are unmitigated and irredeeemable scum, from the bottom of our species’ barrel. They are the worst amongst us. That’s the opinion I’ve been forced to form — forced by the COS scum themselves. They are a motley crew of left wing wannabe tyrants, and of unprincipled, smarmy anybodies out for their own fame and/or fortune and/or power. They are willing to sacrifice what has always been my #1 value, Truth, at the drop of a hat if it will advance their own short term interests, regardless of the consequences for their victims. And they intentionallhy seek out victims. They are sadistic, cynical, disresecters of human virtue. They are the conniving con men of the modern era. And their biggest lie of all is their claim to be members of the human race.
Wow. A complete demolition of the CoS folks’ interpretation of the framers’ intent via Article V. Bravo.
ss
Loudoun — I can’t imagine a better way of making the point you’ve made.
Rita, you say there is abundant precedence for operation of interstate conventions but this is not an “interstate convention” and customs of the day are not binding it were. COS is intentionally conflating that issue.
What I propose to do is exactly what the founders advised us to do.
1. Tremble in fear for our nation’s survival as a Constitutional Republic should an Article V convention EVER be called in the future (the opinion expressed by Madison, (“father of the Constitution.”).
2. Address the real cause of our problem. As all the founders said, a moral citizenry is a necessity for the preservation of our Republic and our liberties. It is the populace which has become corrupt along with the states. All the way down the line — and back UP the line too — from the people to local gov’t to state gov’t to the Federal gov’t, we’ve sold our souls, our liberty, for a mess of welfare state, rob Peter to pay Paul,pottage.
NOTHING anyone does is going to solve our problems unless THEIR CAUSE is addressed. Nibbling aroiund the edges and filing papers and adding amendments and making new laws are NOT going to work.
When the people continue to re-elect men who violate their oaths of office every day, because the people have a warped view of the nature and purpose of our gov’t, which in turn is a consequence of the fact that Americans have no idea what principles their nation’s past success owes its existence to, then the solution is not to add more ink and paper to the documents which most Americans pay no attention to.
The states take federal grants, subsidies and other monies from the Fed Gov. This ranges from a LOW of about 20% of their spending for one state, and a high of about 45% for another. All 50 states are involved. If a state tries to oppose or nullify a Fed mandate or law, and pressure is brought to bear on them with the threat of cutting their Fed Gov grants, matching funds, subsidies, loans, etc etc, then the states will cave in to the law which reduces its citizens’ liberty another notch, EVERY TIME. Why? Because the state gov’t is made of poeple like governors and legislators and DC representatives, who know they will NOT be re-elected if their state loses Federal funding on their watch, forcing either a cutback of state-subsidized programs, or an increase in state taxes.
And why won’t the people re-elect them? Because the people have become addicted to the entitlement mentality, even many self-described conservatives. Most Americans have no idea that they are participating in the theft from Peter to pay Paul welfare state in which Big Brother is expected to run virtually everything, from the economy to the amount of water in our toilets to much of the food we are and are not allowed to purchase for our own consumption.. We demand that our elected reps in DC “bring home the bacon” and, almost universally across all Congressional districts, we will not re-elect people who fail to participate in our de facto “rob Peter to pay Paul” welfare/fascist/socialist political system.
You cannot solve a problem by actions which do not address its cause. LACK OF AMENDMENTS IS NOT THE CAUSE OF OUR PROBLEMS. It’s easy to overlook that when you are not acquainted with the requirements of logical thinking.
The COS Project and similar organizations supporting an Article V convention are looking for a magic bullet that will oh, so easily and directly solve our problems, and allowing wishful thinking (buttressed by a GREAT DEAL of mis-information) to overcome logical thought. It will NOT work because it CANNOT work. It FAILS to identify the real problem, and thus offers a “solution” which, on its face, is doomed to fail (and incidentally to cause GREAT harm, as James Madison sagely predicted such an event would do in a private letter in 1788, as well as in several other places).
For over a century our gov’t and our citizens have been losing sight of our founding principles as expressed in the Declaration, the Constitution, the Federalist, the writings and speeches of our Founders, and other documents which are less “fundamental” but just as relevant to understanding the causes of our nation’s miraculous success — and also to understanding why that success has been gradually morphing into a colossal failure.
Haste makes waste. Unfortunately there is NO “quick fix” for a problem which has been gradually but steadily worsening since before the election of Woodrow Wilson. For the first century or more of our nation’s existence, MANY MANY Americans actually carried copies of the Colnstitution in their pockents, and it was taught in local public schools along with the other principles our nation’s political system rests on. We MUST re-educate the populace. Americans have lost touch with our roots, and when the vote, they have no idea what a “good” candidate really is. We vote for the candidate who just “feels right” or chirps the right mantras like “we need better education,” “we need a strong foreign policy,” “we need to end poverty,” “we need to fight racism,” “we need to balance the budget,” “we need to rehabilitate our nations transportation infrastructure,” etc etc. We vote for the candidates who will BRING HOME THE BACON FROM WASHINGTON TO OUR OWN HOME STATE OR HOME TOWNS, money taken from the citizens of other states. At the same time, those others are voting for representatives who will take money collected by force of law from ourselves, to fund their desires in their home states. Our reps are expected to go to DC for the purpose of battling against others to get our own “fair share” or more of the pie which consists of all the loot taken from everyone. THIS IS NOT THE AMERICAN WAY, and yet it has become the way of life in the USA.
We need EDUCATED voters, educated to WHY we must support the constitution and to the fact that our ignorance of it IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF OUR CURRENT PROBLEMS OF CORRUPTION THROUGHOUT OUR NATION, IN SO MANY SEEMINGLY UNRELATED AREAS, like the arts, education, criminal activity, rampant unethical behavior, corporate cronyism by gov’t officials, our dumbed-down schools, our weakening presence on the world stage, our faltering and even crumbling economy, the growing invasion of our privacy and loss of our liberties by an increasingly authoritarian and even tyrannical federal government, etc etc.
This is NOT just a “current status quo” — it is a PATH we are travelling and we are still on it. Things WILL get worse . . . UNLESS WE ADDRESS THE REAL PROBLEM. Americans MUST re-learn their Constitution and the other founding documents, so they will understand the criteria for a GOOD CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE, and stop re-electing the very same people they have no respect for after the election, based on their promises to do what voters WRONGLY THINK are the things best for the people and the nation.
THAT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION AND IT WILL TAKE TIME AND BE DIFFICULT. But Americans like you, Rita, are too lazy to really check out and learn THOROUGHLY what they need to know — and I’ll justify this criticism of you in a post below. They have been too lazy to do this and that is WHY we find ourselves in such national trouble. But now we are compounding that same error by seeking this Article V quick fix, which is patently an absurdity. We need to educate ourselves so that we can properly use the election process to DEFEAT the people we SEND to DC and then inevitably end up holding in low esteem — but then RE-ELECTING THEM AGAIN. We need to re-discover WHAT MAKES A GOOD CANDIDATE IN THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and let candidates KNOW that now WE KNOW what’s right, and they had better toe the line or they will lose our votes. We need to go to town hall meetings and call our reps’ ofices and ask the right questions: “WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO CARRY OUT YOUR OATH OF OFFICE? PLEASE TELL ME VERY SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOUR PLANS ARE — WHAT PLANS YOU ARE MAKING — TO CORRECT OUR GOV’T’S ABUSES OF POWER, AND TO SUPPORT AND PROTECT AND DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION FROM THE ABUSES OF OUR FEDERAL GOV’T. WHAT ARE YOU PLANNING TO DO, CONGRESSMAN X? SENATOR Y?”
And concurrent with this we must educate the people to another of the MANY remedies for our ills which the framers advised — one which Thomas Jefferson said was THE most natural and advisable and powerful and clear remedies for usurpation of powers by a corrupt gov’t: nullification. Contrary to claims that this has failed, it has worked wonders. When it’s been used it has been successful most of the time, right up to very recently. The problem is that it’s too rarely used by an ignorant electorate, most of whom don’t even know what it is and have never even heard of it. Nullification was a remedy LOVED BY Thomas Jefferson, his #1 recommended and favorite tool for remedying situations such as the one we find ourselves in. It has virtually ZERO risk and has proven itself EXTREMELY successful time and again — when used. But of course, Thomas Jefferson was merely a genius amongst geniuses. The “experts” on your list, Rita, I’m sure must be far more wise and intelligent than Thomas Jefferson, because their views are at odds with his — not to mention at odds with all other acknowledged experts and with the commonly understood truths of the past 200+ years. They are the new boy geniuses who have become experts because they share the same dumb ideas and want to market them, so they hold meetings and confereneces with each other as speakers and pat each other on the back with high praise and form their own little mutual admiration society, write papers in each others’ journals or websites, etc etc so they can each have a list of impressive sounding activities to manufacture for themselves a pretext for donning the title “expert.” Lazy people who are reached by their well-funded marketing efforts and do NOT check with the huge number of genuine experts who have refuted their views, swallow their propaganda whole, and actually believe they are experts. They are easily refuted, and have been countless times, Why don’t you cite all the countless widely acknowledged professors at top universities who are universally acknowledged scholars of the highest order and the highest regard in their profession, virtually all of whom disagree with the self-appointed new “experts” on the block which you name?
FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS I am going to mention a few things about just ONE of the people on your list of “experts” because time does not permit a report on all of them. Here are some facts few know about Mark Meckler, President of “The COS Project:”
1. His actual profession has mostly been in marketing. Prior to his Tea Party experience he worked with a firm called Herbal LIfe to create a pyramid scheme for remunerating people who sold its products. A “pyramid” scheme is akin to a chain letter, where each person gets a rake-off from the income of those he in turn recruits. Herbal LIfe was in deep trouble, inundated with law suits and went under before initial moves to investigate it got rolling. Those at the top may end up selling product to the next people in the chain, and if/when the chain breaks, all the people down the line are stuck with inventory that they already paid for, while those at the top get paid first by the next level down, who may then be amongst those stuck with the goods if/when the pyramid scheme fails. At the time it went under, Herbal Life was the defendant in several lawsuits and investigations were in the early stages of consideration by some authorities. Mr Meckler is alleged to have made his initial sizable stake from his activities at Herbal Life.
2. He then turned to the Tea Party Patriots (TPP), again getting in on the ground floor to milk an idea for what it was worth until the milk stopped flowing. Google “Kelleigh Nelson” to find her article on the Tea Party’s takeover attempts by RINOs and the Republican party. That article has a LONG discussion of the sordid aspects of Tea Party Patriots. Here are just a couple of them: Meckler became a co-founder of it with Jenny Beth Martin. She and her husband were VERY deeply in debt, owing well over $1 million just in SOME of their back taxes, plus other debts,.and found ways to generate income for themselves from the Tea Party Movement via Tea Party Patriots. And BTW, TPP is currently behind (as of a few months ago, per Kelleigh Nelson’s report) in a few years’ worth of tax filings for their non-profit TPP operation.
Perhaps with Meckler’s marketing skills, TPP became a national organization initially charging membership fees, Without naming names, in early 2010, in the state where resided at that time, I knew a fellow I discovered to be very unethical — he went behind my back to people I knew, falsely claiming he represented me without my knowledge or permission, and when I later found out some things about his past, it was very embarassing to have been associated with him, by him, in the minds of others, a view of association with him which bore no resemblance to reality. I had just agreed to appear and give opinions at a hearing on a topic I am somewhat expert in, which I agreed to for reasons of supporting justice and truth. He then used my credentials to go back into my past and approach others representing himself as being closely associated with me. Well, this fellow at one point confided to a close friend of mine that he was going to make a fortune as state rep for TPP, and he began actively recruiting people from amongst other grass roots patriot groups in my state. Apparently he would be getting a rake-off from the membership fees,and perhaps recruiting others to aid in his recruitment who in turn would share in the divvying of the membership fees.
At TPP, of which Meckler was a co-founder with the Martins, Mr. Martin who was in such financial straits as described above, was given a position akin to treasurer or bursar. TPP used outside marketing services to raise funds for various small patriot groups, making heavy use of one firm which was popular amongst Republicans for campaign fund raising. TPP presented itself as helping small groups raise funds, then it would turn the task over to an outside fund raiser which was allowed to keep up to 70% of the funds raised as its fee for its services. No one knows if there were any kickbacks, but that is where much or most of the money many people contributed to various causes and patriotic groups went, if they made their donations thru TPP.
3. According to Meckler’s own off the cuff words in a recent COS Project webinar — its start had been delayed by technical issues so he chatted with the audience for several minutes to maintain their attention — he was never involved in politics in his whole life before the Tea Party — he said he viewed politics as a kind of “sport.” Then he “got religion” and joined the Tea Party, soon after the Tea Party movement started, by co-founding TPP. Apparently it’s a coincidence (??) that, like Herbal Life, TPP also adopted a pyramid scheme for divvying up the membership fees and perhaps other income.
TPP is a non-profit organization having a tax status which permits it to keep much of its financial information confidential, whereas most non-profits are required to disclose certain info, or make it available to the public. They do not have to disclose their donors’ names. Several employees quit, including Meckler, about 4 years or so after the’d joined. The complaints were primarily about how the money was being spent and used, and how certain expectations promised were not fulfilled, etc. I wonder if “there is no honor amongst thieves” might have some relevance here, but it’s just a question I would like the answer to, which I do not have access to. So . . . Meckler, the pragmatic non-political sports fan who suddenly found passion and values and a commitment to a political cause for the first time in his life (according to the way he tells the story on the COS webinar), suddenly also quit TPP. The reason he gave in his webinar preface was that the Tea Party (not TPP, but the Tea Party generally) was losing momentum. Perhaps this means in the money it generated, or in the amount of name-recognition and speaking fees he might have been able to command.
oops, accidentally posted this, Must edit to finish it up. so,,,, a bit more will be here in a few minutes.
I had known most of the background on Meckler before, but most do not, so I applaud you for bringing it out.
Also, just as an aside, I can still see your 5-part comment, and hope others here take the time to read it.
Rita,
If you don’t acknowledge that an Article V convention can be a “runaway” convention, then for all your vaunted experience studying the Constitution and Article V, you still haven’t a clue as to the nature of our form of governjment, and the place our Constitution holds in its logical structure.
See my reply to Loudoun way below which explains why the very real possiblitiy — probabiliy in practice — of a runaway convention is a 100% inescapable, irrefutable, and insurmountable FACT.
Then perhaps you should spend another few years studying this SINGLE SENTENCE constitutional Article — Article 5 — or perhaps take a speed reading course, or a reading comprehension course.
Your and the COS position are insupportable by the very nature of our government and the single most fundamental principle upon which the United States of America were founded. Taking my own perspective on a few well-known words of wisdom: If you study a single tree, or even a few of them, but do so to the exclusion of the forest, then your vision of those trees is bound to be grievously distorted by the lack of thorough knowledge essential to a full and proper understanding of their nature.
Rita, you have things reversed again regarding evidence for your vs. Loudoun’s view. Precedent is NOT the only form of evidence. I have never dropped my cell phone from a height of more than 4 feet. I don’t need precedent to draw the conclusion that I would regret dropping it off the Empire State Building.
Article V is a constitutional convention. Read Black’s Law dictionary. ANY convention that deals with ANY aspect of the constitution is a constitutional convention.
And a convention is just delegates who have been selected by some means and given a mandate by some authority. People are people, mandates are mandates, and conventions are conventions. You don’t need precendent to know a Ford crashing into a concrete wall a 100 miles an hour is a threat to the lives of its occupants after you’ve seent that happen a few time to Chevrolets.
And that’s not the only source of evidence. Logical thinking and deduction can provide reasons for forming valid hypotheses and even definite conclusions. Einstein figured out that E=mc2 by means of a “gedanken” experiment — ie, by performing an imagined experiment in his head and deducing from the mathematical necessities of two separate equations governing two aspects of the same process that THAT was what E had to be equal to.
Loudoun doesn’t need precedent, but in fact there have been many. And it is you who have no evidenced that an Article V convention is, or is even analogous to, and interstate convention. You have NO idea what the convention would look like. Most interstate conventions of the past were of many fewer states than might be possible under Art 5 — even ASSUMING that the states would appoint the delegates, which is pretty HUGE assumption for which YOU have no precedent or support.
If you read my long comment several comments below this, you will know why Congress “shall call” a convention means exactly what it says, just like all other simple and unambiguous language describing procedural matters in the Constitution. What the heck does it MEAN to say that Congress “shall call” a convention if the Convention is not going to be called by Congress? Why is Congress in the picture if this is to be a convention of the states complete control? What do you see as Congress’s role in an Article 5 convention, Rita? What will Congress do when it complies with the “shall” of ARticle 5 and “calls” a convention? CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE ARTICLE V CONVENTION WILL LOOK LIKE, OR SOME GENERAL DETAILS ABOUT IT? Will each state have 1 delegate? Will the delegates be determined by the population of the attending states? Will it be according to their electoral college votes? Will ALL 50 states be represented at the convention, or only those who submitted applications to Congress? Or, will the states have NO REPRESENTATION AT ALL?
You assert and claim that the convention will be of the states but I would like to hear answers to the above questions. You claim you have precedent, but you cannot make that claim unless you know the nature of what an Article 5 convention will look like, so please tell me.
If you do know generally what an ARticle V colnvention will look like, then you are the first person in history to know. Until the historically VERY VERY recent attempt by those reviving the call for an Art V convention appeared on the scene, no founder, no framer, no judge, no Supreme Court Chief Justice, no congressman, no senator, no state governors, no state legislators, NO ONE has ever dared to attempt even a vague description of what an Article 5 convention would look like becaue ONE HAS NEVER BEFORE BEEN CALLED.
Some have offered myriad examples of what it MIGHT look like, but until just a few years ago, NO ONE had any idea what it would look like because all through history it has been understood htat Congress calls, and thus has the power to define, what it will look like. There is NO precedent for YOUR argument. Only in the past few years have the very recent “COS” advocates claimed that they know the nature of that convention, that suddenly Congress has no leeway in calling the convention, while EVERYONE BEFORE THEM AGREED ON THE OBVIOUS, NAMELY ON WHAT ARTICLE V SO CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATES, NAMELY THAT CONGRESS WILL DECIDE HOW TO CALL THE CONVENTION.
That last statement, BTW, has been true since Sept. 15, 1787. EVERYONE at the convention on that day was in TOTAL agreement that Congress would be in charge of calling the convention. In your more than a year of study of ARticle V, didn’t you know that? The three fellows who WANTED Congress out of the picture (Mason, Gerry and Reynolds) did not LIKE the fact that Congress would have full power over calling the Convention. Amongst ALL the other delegates, there was a unanimous approval of the fact that Congress would be there to set up and define the kind of convention it thought best. IE, ALL the delegates who were there on the spot at the birth of the Article V convention idea, the men who PROPOSED the addition of that option to Article V, and the men who voted on its addition to Article V — ALL OF THE CREATORS OF ARTICLE V AND OF ITS CONVENTION OPTION — every single one of them agreed that the states would yield control over the calling of the convention to Congress, IN CONTRADICTION TO YOUR POSITION, which happens coincidentally to be identical with, and based on assumptions which are identical with, those of The COS Project.
NO ONE in all US history has had a different opinion until The COS Project came along a few years ago and ASSERTED WITH ZERO SUPPORT FOR THEIR ASSERTION that the states would be in control.
Furthermore, are you aware of the uniform agreement amongst the founders and virtually all constitutional experts throughout US history that a convention has “plenipotentiary” powers? This means HAVING FULL POWER TO ACT INDEPENDENTLY ON BEHALF OF ITS GOVERNMENT, kinda like having FULL power of attorney for an individual.
The framers and founders agreed, it went without saying as a direct consequence of the most fundamental principles on which our nation was built, the principles put forth in hte DECLARATION of Independence!!! This means ALL agree that a convention dealing with constitutional issues of any nature has FULL INDEPENDENT POWER to do WHATEVER it sees fit to do.
Did you learn in your studies that a convention is THE #1 HIGHEST law making authority? Higher than any gov’t body, even the body which may have called and defined and authorized the convention. Higher even than the Constitution or any other document under which it was called or created or assembled. Did your studies inform you of that fact?
This is why EVERY convention is inherently a potentially “runaway” convention — because there is NO higher authority which can order it to do anything other than what it chooses on its own to do. ALL mandates or orders or attempts to limit a convention’s area of authority or topics it may consider are POINTLESS since ANY convention can simply ignore them at will and do as it chooses.
Still further: Did your constitutional background and long study of Article V expose you to the section we call “the 1st amendment?” Are you aware that it prohibits any infringement on the right to freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly? Once the gavel drops on a convention, even if the convention didn’t already have plenipotentiary power, the Supreme Law of the Constitution protects from any infringement upon them, the rights to free speech and to freely assemble, peaceably. Thus there is NO law, NO body of government, NO agency, which can interfere with what is said, proposed, polled, voted upon etc etc by anyone at a convention REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANY GOV’T BODY OR LAW MAY SAY TO THE CONTRARY.
A convention is THE highest law making body of any type of law making body. Higher tan the Constitution, higher than Congress.
Thus ANY convention is potentially a “runaway” convention and those who get embroiled in arguments over the validiy of or violation of mandated or directed or authorized topics a convention must restrict itself to, ARE ALL CHASING A WILL O’ THE WISP. As long as they are not violent, but peaceful, ANY convention can do ANYTING it likes.
And this will always be true regardless of any future laws, amendments or new consitutions.
So Loudoun is perfectly correct to be concerned about the possibility of a “runaway” convention. Thjis is ALWAYS a possibility with ANY convention.
You can’t, because Congress calls it, and the
You have missed a major point. This convention of states is to be called under a limiting subject of “to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal govt and apply term limits to Congress and other federal officials.”. Soros, code pink, etc would have little to no interest in such limiting of federal power. A convention called in this manner must remain within it. As Rita explained, Congress is a daily convention and can propose any amendment on any day while in session. And there are hundreds of Progressives and Liberals there as well, many of whom are fully supported by the Code Pinks and George Soroses. And, there is NO limiting subject on what Congress can propose. The mere fact that they exist is their Constitutional authority to propose, and within any and all subjects they so choose.
You are the one that has missed the major point. You CANNOT LIMIT the convention. It doesn’t matter what you say or what any state legislature writes in its application to Congress. Once the convention is called, the delegates selected and seated, and the convention called to order, they can do anything they want.
Yes, Congress can propose amendments to the constitution at any time, and there are a number of Congressmen who submit bills to amend the Constitution every year. The simple fact that a proposed constitutional amendment hasn’t made it out of Congress in almost 40 years shows you that we have little to fear from it.
Loudoun — you are 100% correct and the reason for this is very simple.
The Constitution itself recognizes that it, itself, may be the highest of the nation’s laws, but there is an authority even higher than the Constitution, and it is the Constitution’s VERY PURPOSE and VERY REASON FOR EXISTING: to protect that authority. That authority is: the inalienable and sovereign right of every man to the exclusive ownership and control over his own life.
This was given in the Declaration as the JUSTIFICATION for the creation of the United States of America as an independent nation, and the Constitution was then created to implement in practice the methods, laws, rules, procedures, etc which would likely be the most effective in preserving and protecting and securing that sovereign right of every man, that EXCLUSIVE sovereign right, over his own life.
There are many subsidiary rights, also inalienable which can be directly deduced to follow from the primary right to one’s own life. By subsidiary I don’t mean to ranik their importance. I mean they are LOGICALLY subsidiary, in the sense that once the right to one’s life is asserted or established or agreed to, then with that as “the given,” logical reasoning can be applied to derive from it numerous other rights which MUST also be inalienable, because without them, the right to one’s life would no longer exist, or would no longer be exclusive.
Two of those rights are listed in the 1st amendment to the Constitution as rights which the Constitution FORBIDS the federal gov’t from infringing. They are the right to freedom of speech, and the right to peaceable assembly.
This means that once ANY group of citizens has assembled for a peaceful purpose and exercises peaceful behavior, niether Congress, nor the states, nor any body of government nor anyone else on earth has a right to interfere with the inalienable right of every member of that group to his freedom to say what he thinks, or wishes to say, and no one has the right to prevent the group as a whole from discussion, from taking a poll or vote of its members, from playing word games, giving speeches, telling jokes, reading from the Bible, relating personal stories or whatever they choose to discuss.
Any convention called by Congress, the states, or the Janitor of City Hall in Anytown, USA will consist of men who have these inalienable rights, and thus if one or a few of an Article V convention’s delegates should suddenly arrive at the idea of proposing a new Constitution altogether, that is their right. If they should decide to close the convention and go home after an hour of swapping jokes, they would certainly look foolish and unreliable to the world, but that is their right, and those who called the convention might well wish to try again with a different set of delegates. NO ONE has a right to punish or coerce them in any way with regard to what they choose to say or to act upon peaceably.
That is the basic,fundamental, irrefutable and insurmountable REFUTATION of the idea that any political convention of voluntary attendees can be restricted or restrained from discussing, considering, or voting on whatever they wish. If the result is a universally loved new Constitution, it will probably be adopted by the rest of the nation. If the result is a astonishingly beautiful poem, it may prompt the private establishment of a poetic hall of fame. If the result is a recommendation for a revision in the offical rules of professional baseball, it may or may not be adopted by the professional leagues of baseball, and if the result is proposals for amendments to the existing federal Constitution, and if the convention was called under Article V, then Congress will be obliged by law to deliver those proposals to the individual states, with Congress’s instruction to them that either by state convention or by a vote of the state’s legislature, the proposed amendment(s) must be ratified or rejected, and if ratified by a sufficent number of states according to the method Congress has specified, then that (or those) amendment(s) will be adopted and added to the current Constitution.
So, anyone who claims that a “runaway” or “wild” convention is ijmpossible, can be instantly dismissed as an ignoramus of the highest order on the topic of the nature of our government and the basic precepts on which its existence and functioning rest.
Anyone who claims said run away convention is a forgone conclusion is also an ignoramus. You have no way of calculating the odds and your claims are mere supposition.
In my professional life, I’ve observed that persons who are unable to act due to a seemingly limitless need to discuss, argue and even wallow in disagreements over process have difficulty seeing major projects through to completion in a timely and efficient manner. They are not leaders and actually become a hindrance to those focused on results.
I have criticized establishment republicans for not taking the erosion of constitutional adhereance seriously. They act as if we have all the time in the world – “if we can just get the house;” “if we can just get the senate;” if we can just get the presidency;” “just another supreme court appointment,” they say. Guess what – we’ll never get there. We are likely past the point of landing safely if we have a supreme court justice who declines to say that the federal government can’t force us to eat broccoli. It seems that our challenges are swelling exponentially but all I hear is – “if we can just educate a few good people.”
I support people who will act on their beliefs to educate their neighbors – but worry they’ve lost sight of where we are as a nation and that the changes will not arrive in time.
See my reply to Loudoun way down below as to the reason why you HAVE to be right, and why the potential for a runaway convention MUST be an inescapable and insurmountable FACT.