Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

The “Convention of States” Scam, the War over the Constitution, and how the States Sold the Reserved Powers to the Feds.

By Publius Huldah

Our Constitution is a glorious document. This one page chart depicts the Structure of the federal government we created when we ratified our Constitution; and lists the “limited & enumerated powers” we delegated to the federal government over the Country at Large.

In a nutshell, our Constitution authorizes the federal government to handle the following objects for the Country at Large:

  • Military defense, international commerce & relations;
  • Control immigration & naturalization of new citizens;
  • Domestically, to create a uniform commercial system:  weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
  • With some of the amendments, secure certain civil rights.

Basically, that’s it.  As stated in the 10th Amendment, all others powers are reserved by the States or The People.

But for 100 years, almost everyone in our Country has ignored our Constitution.  Thus, instead of restricting spending to the enumerated objects of its powers, the people WE send to Congress spend money on what anybody wants – and so gave us a debt of $17 trillion.  Instead of restricting lawmaking to the enumerated objects of its powers, the people WE send to Congress make laws on whatever they like. The President WE elected tramples all over the Constitution; and due to the connivance, cowardice, and ignorance of Congress, the supreme Court, State governments, and the American People, is seizing totalitarian power.

WE are in terrible trouble.

And it is the phony right wing which is seducing the American People into taking the final jump off the cliff.

Michael Farris, head of the Convention of States 1 project, begins his video with this spiel:

“We all know that our government is way off track. The debt is astronomical and is going to cripple not only our own freedom and our own economy, but our children and our grandchildren are going to be effectively slaves, paying for all the things that we’re spending money on today.”

That part of his video is true.

But the purpose of their spiels is to make you believe they are on your side.  You must look behind the spiels and think carefully about what they are proposing as “solutions”.  Much is at stake:

THIS IS THE WAR over our Constitution and Country.  And here are the two sides:

Learn & Enforce our Existing Constitution!

One side proposes that we learn & enforce our existing Constitution of limited & enumerated powers.  We show that our Framers advised us to enforce our Constitution by (1) electing better representatives to annul the acts of the usurpers, 2 or by (2) nullification of unconstitutional acts.

To illustrate: What would our Country’s financial condition be if WE THE PEOPLE had enforced the enumerated powers on Congress?

It is the enumerated powers which list the objects on which Congress may appropriate funds:

  • immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
  • mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
  • Attorney General (Art. I, §8, cl. 6)
  • post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
  • patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
  • federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9)
  • military (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
  • the civil list (Art. I, §6, cl.1)
  • [and other objects listed in various other articles, sections, &clauses]

Do you get the idea?  The Constitution itemizes what Congress is permitted to spend money on. See also the two geographical areas over which Congress was delegated “general legislative powers”: Art. I, §8, next to last clause, & Art. IV, §3, cl. 2.

The reason we have a debt of $17 trillion is because everyone ignored the Constitution; so Congress spent money on objects outside the scope of its enumerated powers.

Amend Away our Existing Constitution?

But the Randy Barnett 3/ Rob Natelson/ Michael Farris/ Mark Levin camp want a “convention” so they can gut our existing Constitution by amending out the limited & enumerated powers with new amendments which grant general powers to the federal government; or they seek to re-write the Constitution altogether. 

Here are illustrations of how the limited & enumerated powers can be amended out of our Constitution:

It has already been shown how the so-called balanced budget amendment would transform our Constitution from one of enumerated spending powers to one of general spending powers, where spending would be limited only by the amount of revenue the federal government generates or a certain percentage of the GDP. 4 But under our existing Constitution, the federal government’s expenditures are limited by the constitutional grants of authority – the enumerated powers.  The problem is everyone ignores the enumerated powers – they never even bothered to learn what they are!

Here is another illustration:  Michael Farris, the grand master of The Spiel, has managed to convince many parents that the only way to protect their parental rights is an amendment to the Constitution which delegates to the federal and State governments constitutional power over their children!

And Mark Levin’s suggested amendments would gut our Constitution.  Most increase the powers of the federal government by making constitutional what is now unconstitutional because it is not an enumerated power.  The amendments pertaining to “overrides” undermine the Constitution as the objective standard of what is lawful and what is not – and substitute majority vote therefor.  These “overrides” would erase the Constitution and replace it with majority (mob) rule.

Or is “re-writing the Constitution” their actual goal?

Farris says in the video:

“…sometimes what you need is not a change of personnel, you need a change of structure. The Founders understood the importance of structure…”

Does that give you cold chills?

How does Farris seek to change the structure?

Please – all of you – look at this one page chart which depicts The Structure of the federal government our Framers gave us:  What needs changing?  Isn’t enforcement what we need?

Jordan Sillars, Communications Director for Farris’ Convention of States Project, let the cat out of the bag:

On September 15, 2013, a discussion on my Face Book page was started about Mark Levin’s clamoring for a “convention of states”.

On or before September 19, Jordon Sillars posted a comment wherein he said:

“… 3. I think the majority of Americans are too lazy to elect honest politicians. But I think some men and women could be found who are morally and intellectually capable of re-writing the Constitution…” [boldface mine].

On September 19 at 1:20 p.m., I responded:

“So, this really is about “re-writing the Constitution”, isn’t it?

And could you name these individuals who are “morally and intellectually capable of re-writing the Constitution”?”

Sillars thereafter deleted his comments, but not before I obtained a screen shot of his quoted comment which you can see here.

Why did he delete his comments?

Now let’s look more at what Farris says in his video:

The False Statements & Silly Arguments of the Proponents of a “convention of States”

1.  After his introduction about the $17 trillion debt, Farris goes on to say:

The States have the power under Article V to call a convention of the States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution…”

His statement is false.

The Truth is the States have no authority to call the convention.  That power is delegated to Congress.  Article V says:

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…” [emphasis mine]

Congress calls it.  Not the States.

Furthermore, Dr. Edwin Vieira has pointed out:

 ‘The language “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments” sets out a constitution duty in Congress. It embraces a constitutional power as well. That brings into play Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, which delegates to Congress the power “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers [that is, in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 through 17], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”. The power to “call a Convention for proposing Amendments” is one of those “all other Powers”. Therefore, pursuant to that power, Congress may enact whatever “Law[ ] which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the * * * Power [to call a Convention]’.

So!  Since Article V vests in Congress the power to call the convention; and since Article I, §8, last clause, vests in Congress the power to make all laws necessary & proper to execute its delegated powers; 5 Congress would be  within its constitutional authority to organize the Convention anyway it wants, and to appoint whomsoever it wishes as delegates. 6

Now look at this:  The chart on Article V shows that James Madison, Father of our Constitution, remarked on the vagueness of the term, “call a Convention for the purpose”:

How was a Convention to be formed? – by what rule decide? – what the force of its acts?” (Sep. 10); and “difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, &c., which in constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided” (Sep. 15, 1787).

Phyllis Schlafly also raised Twenty Questions about a Constitutional Convention.

Congress, pursuant to Article V and Article I, §8, last clause, has the constitutional power to answer all these questions by means of a law.

Folks!  The Farris/Natelson/ Levin camp is not telling you the truth when they say the States decide these issues!

2. Farris then says in his video:

“…in Article V of the Constitution [the Founding Fathers] gave us the solution…”

“…they gave the power to the States to create a new set of rules when the federal government overstepped its boundaries. We can recalibrate the rules to take power away from Washington D.C. and give it back to the people and to the States.”

His statements are both false and silly.

Here is the false part of what he said:

It was not the consensus at the Federal Convention of 1787 that the purpose of Article V was so States could make amendments to the Constitution in order to take power away from a federal government which had usurped power by violating the Constitution.

This chart shows what happened at the Federal Convention of 1787 re development of Article V.

Two delegates (Randolph & Mason, who didn’t sign the Constitution) supported the notion that amendments might be used if the national government should become oppressive.  And they didn’t want Congress to have any power over amendment procedures. Their view was the minority view.

Other delegates (Gov. Morris, Hamilton & Madison) thought Congress ought to be able to propose amendments.  One delegate (Mr. Gerry) worried about States obtaining a convention and binding the Union to innovations which subverted State Constitutions.  Hamilton spoke of amendments to correct defects which would probably appear in the Constitution.

So the final version of Article V provides two methods of proposing amendments to the Constitution.  Congress either:

  • Proposes the amendments; or
  • “Calls” a convention when the Legislatures of 2/3 of the States apply for it.  [Now see Art. I, §8, last clause.]

Now for the silly parts of what Farris said (and there are two silly parts):

3.  Farris tells us the solution to a federal government which “overstep[s] its boundaries” [violates the Constitution] is to amend the Constitution.

He proposes “to take power away from Washington D.C.” [power the federal government has usurped] by “recalibrate[ing] the rules”.

In other words, the solution to a federal government which violates the Constitution is to amend the Constitution.

Do you see how silly this is?

4.  Farris and his camp also imply that the States are victims of federal tyranny, and are the virtuous & wise ones who can fix our Country if they can just get a convention to propose amendments.

But the States are the ones who sold you out to the federal government in the first place!  I’ll show you:

The 10th Amendment says:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

What happened to these reserved powers?

The States sold them to the federal government.

Let’s use education as an illustration of how the States sold to the federal government your reserved power to educate your own children in the way you see fit.

The Creator God who, as recognized by our Declaration of Independence, endowed us with unalienable rights; assigned to parents the responsibility to provide for the education & moral instruction of their children:  Proverbs 1:8-9, 6:20-21, 13:1, 22:6 & 23:19-22; Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 4:9-10 & 6:1-7; Ephesians 6:1-4; 2 Timothy 1:5  & 3:15-17.

Is “education” one of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government for the Country at large?  No.  So the federal government has no constitutional authority to get involved.  Accordingly, all acts of Congress pertaining to education for the Country at Large, the federal Department of Education, and all their rules & programs are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.

So why does the federal government dictate all things respecting education?

Because your States sold your God-given responsibility to educate your own children – and your reserved power to do so - to the federal government.  This has been going on for a long time; but most recently your State sold you out for federal grants with the federal government’s “race to the top” and “common core” schemes. 7

You have to be ignorant, unthinking, & gullible – a greenhorn – to believe that The States are the men in the white hats who can fix all this with a convention to propose amendments.

Conclusion

The federal government is not the problem – it is the result of our own ignorance, pride and folly.

WE THE PEOPLE, who are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” (Federalist No. 16, next to last para) didn’t trouble ourselves to learn the enumerated powers of Congress and the President.  Do you know them?

I ask my Readers who have been supporting the “convention of States” scheme:  Have you studied our Founding Principles set forth in The Declaration of Independence? Have you studied the text of the Constitution so that you know what it says?

If not, how are you qualified to know how to “fix” a Constitution you never learned?

Are you willing to stake your lives & liberties, and those of your progeny, on whether those in the Barnett/Natelson/Farris/ Levin camp (1) know what they are talking about, and (2) are telling the truth?

Why? Because you like them?  Because they provide a scapegoat which permits you to blame-shift?  And you think you can “get even”?

Wise voices in this Country are warning you about the scam.  Foremost among them is Phyllis Schlafly, who has been warning of this danger for decades. Yet, such is the ignorant conceit of the greenhorns that they sneer at those who are warning them.

I trust you now see the connection between the moral corruption of a People and tyranny.

Endnotes:

1 Use your own head!  Do not be manipulated by other peoples’ choice of words. Rob Natelson formerly referred to what he wants as a “constitutional convention”.  Now, he calls it a “Convention of the States” – that is the term his cohorts & minions now use.  Why did they change what they called it?

2 But our elections are no longer honest. The States took federal grant money to buy voting machines which can be rigged.

3 Randy Barnett’s “Bill of Federalism” is ten proposed amendments which would transform our Constitution from one of enumerated powers to one of general & unlimited powers.  Mark Levin’s proposed amendments are similar to Barnett’s.

4 The GDP is computed by an agency in the Executive Branch. So under the BBA, spending would be limited by numbers under the control of the federal government:  By how much they tax you; or by a number (GDP) the Executive Branch computes. You think that is a fine idea?

5 The Federalist Papers tell us what the “necessary & proper” clause (Art. I, §8, last clause) means:  The clause delegates to Congress power to pass all laws necessary & proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary & proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 4th  para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (Federalist No. 33, 2nd para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a tautology or redundancy. (Federalist No. 33, 4th para).  See also Federalist No. 44, 10th -17th paras.  In other words, the clause permits the execution of powers already declared and granted.

Do not be misled by Rob Natelson’s post on the “necessary & proper” clause!  Why did Natelson ignore what The Federalist Papers say about this clause?  Why did he fabricate the song & dance set forth in his post?

6 Think this through also: Even if Congress, as a matter of grace, permitted the States to appoint delegates, how would delegates from your State be chosen? Who controls your State? Would the powers in your State choose you?  Or do you believe Michael Farris would choose the leaders?

7 This happened in your State because The People in your State elected to State government people who sold you out.  See this website on federal grants:  http://www.ffis.org/database   You think your State Legislators, who have been gobbling up all the federal grant money they can get, will fix our Country at a “convention” to propose amendments? PH.

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

December 18, 2013 - Posted by | 10th Amendment, Amendments to the Constitution, Amendments: Parental Rights Amendment, Article V, Article V Convention, constitutional convention, Convention of States project, Edwin Vieira, Federal Convention of 1787, Jordan Sillars, Mark Levin, Michael Farris, Necessary and Proper clause, Phony right wing, Phyllis Schlafly, re-writing the Constitution, Retained Powers, States Retained Powers, Tenth Amendment, The Liberty Amendments | , , , , , , , ,

48 Comments »

  1. Reblogged this on The Jade(d) Warrior and commented:
    And only those items specifically listed, all other spending is unlawful:
    “It is the enumerated powers which list the objects on which Congress may appropriate funds:
    •immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
    •mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
    •Attorney General (Art. I, §8, cl. 6)
    •post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
    •patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
    •federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9)
    •military (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
    •the civil list (Art. I, §6, cl.1)
    •[and other objects listed in various other articles, sections, &clauses]

    Do you get the idea? The Constitution itemizes what Congress is permitted to spend money on.”

    Comment by The Jade(d) Warrior | October 7, 2014 | Reply

  2. […] Framers (who valued freedom) created the US Constitution.  It was designed specifically to rein-in and control government, and thereby protect the freedom of “we the people.”  The Framers saw the form of government […]

    Pingback by Progressive Chains and ‘Liberating Tolerance’ - Watchmen News | June 20, 2014 | Reply

  3. […] Founding Framers (who valued freedom) created the US Constitution.  It was designed specifically to rein-in and control government, and thereby protect the freedom of “we the people.”  The Framers saw the form of government […]

    Pingback by Progressive Chains and “Liberating Tolerance” | | June 20, 2014 | Reply

  4. […] on the right now want to sell us on the idea that an Article V constitutional convention is the answer to a rogue government. What makes them think that the feds would obey an amended […]

    Pingback by Obamacare Wrecked My Business. But I Am Not Blaming Obama. | Foodforthethinkers's Blog | February 22, 2014 | Reply

  5. […] In my last paper, I showed how our Constitution itemizes what Congress is authorized to spend money on; and that we have a $17 trillion debt because everyone ignores the limits the Constitution places on Congress’ spending powers. […]

    Pingback by Propaganda And The Conspiracy against Our Constitution | Parker County Blog | February 6, 2014 | Reply

  6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plo5Bpt_rIU This lady, Meg Penrose attended the Harvard Forum on the Con Con. She wants to rewrite the Constitution via a Con Con.

    Comment by Hal Shurtleff | February 5, 2014 | Reply

    • Yes, the conspirators HATE our Constitution and want to get rid of it. The ONLY way they can do this is to have an Art. V convention. Once the convention is convened, they can introduce a new Constitution with its own new method of ratification [which need NOT involve the States], and there is not a thing we can do do stop it.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2014 | Reply

  7. Reblogged this on No Convention of States! and commented:
    The Convention of States (old Balanced Budget Amendment crowd from years back) movement is finishing the transfer of power away from ‘We the People’ to American Fascist Federalism. Practically speaking, our God-given rights have been almost entirely squandered away. Please carefully read this post and think critically–Mark Levin is wrong.

    Comment by J Gault | January 29, 2014 | Reply

  8. […] In my last paper, I showed how our Constitution itemizes what Congress is authorized to spend money on; and that we have a $17 trillion debt because everyone ignores the limits the Constitution places on Congress’ spending powers. […]

    Pingback by Propaganda And The Conspiracy against Our Constitution « Publius-Huldah's Blog | January 28, 2014 | Reply

  9. […] In my last paper, I showed how our Constitution itemizes what Congress is authorized to spend money on; and that we have a $17 trillion debt because everyone ignores the limits the Constitution places on Congress’ spending powers. […]

    Pingback by Bridge for sale…cheap! | Scanned Retina Resource | January 25, 2014 | Reply

  10. […] In my last paper, I showed how our Constitution itemizes what Congress is authorized to spend money on; and that we have a $17 trillion debt because everyone ignores the limits the Constitution places on Congress’ spending powers. […]

    Pingback by Propaganda and the Conspiracy Against Our Constitution | therightplanet.com | January 15, 2014 | Reply

  11. […] In my last paper, I showed how our Constitution itemizes what Congress is authorized to spend money on; and that we have a $17 trillion debt because everyone ignores the limits the Constitution places on Congress’ spending powers. […]

    Pingback by Propaganda And The Conspiracy Against Our Constitution | American Clarion | January 15, 2014 | Reply

  12. […] In my last paper, I showed how our Constitution itemizes what Congress is authorized to spend money on; and that we have a $17 trillion debt because everyone ignores the limits the Constitution places on Congress’ spending powers. […]

    Pingback by Propaganda And The Conspiracy Against Our Constitution | Grumpy Opinions | January 15, 2014 | Reply

  13. […] In my last paper, I showed how our Constitution itemizes what Congress is authorized to spend money on; and that we have a $17 trillion debt because everyone ignores the limits the Constitution places on Congress’ spending powers. […]

    Pingback by Propaganda And The Conspiracy Against Our Constitution | NoisyRoom.net | January 14, 2014 | Reply

  14. PH, Dead wrong! Desperate times require decisive action. We are headed over a cliff. A small course correction will not be sufficient to fix the problems. Repeal the 17th Amendment or forget freedom.

    Comment by Gary | January 7, 2014 | Reply

    • Gary,

      I suggest you are being manipulated by several well-known propaganda techniques – watch for my next paper.

      A 100 years ago, the American People got suckered into supporting the 17th amendment. Now, the 17th amendment is being used to sucker them into clamoring for a convention where they will lose our Constitution altogether.

      And explain to me why you trust The States to fix this at a convention to propose amendments or to rewrite the Constitution. Are the States not the ones who sold us out to the federal government in the first place? It was the STATES who sold the retained powers to the federal government …. for federal funds.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2014 | Reply

  15. Here is an article from a Constitutional attorney who is challenging both sides to dialog: http://www.krisannehall.com/index.php/blog/137-article-v-conventions-or-nullification-an-adult-conversation.

    Comment by Cindy L. | January 6, 2014 | Reply

  16. the biggest fallacy of the idea of a constitutional convention is the smug assumption that, if it was held, the constitutional conservatives would control it because they are the majority of “real” Americans. If so, where were they when we elected every President since Reagan? Missing in action, if they exist in such numbers. But they don’t. Our revolution was fought and won with one-third of American colonists supporting it, roughly one-third opposing it and one-third neutral. That was a war, but the stats add up pretty much the same today, but back then, after the Tories lost, many fled back to England or to Canada, or they just shut up, fearful of reaction from the victors. Today, facing the same 3-3-3 stats, how could we capture the two-thirds needed to control the convention? With Romney’s 47% proven accurate, and with Obama winning with 53-54%, where would WE get the 2/3rds? We wouldn’t.

    It’s much saner to try to enforce what we’ve got than to open the door to systemic change.

    Ned Barnett – Nevada – former Tea Party activist in hiding

    Comment by Ned Barnett (@nedbarnett) | January 3, 2014 | Reply

    • Amen! Keep posting and talking to those who jumped on Mark Levin’s bandwagon. What you say is so True – but the bandwagon jumpers live in fantasy land and are not facing reality.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 3, 2014 | Reply

  17. We haven’t had a constitution since Lincoln. It matters not what we say it is a dead issue. Matters of history when beyond the reach of discussion and law can only be resolved by blood and iron.

    All the rest is chatter.

    Comment by Veritas | January 1, 2014 | Reply

    • This would be one reason I would support a convention. I agree that we should enforce the existing constitution, but he have been sold down the river for too long under the guise of our benevolent betters who wore the flag as a drape to hide their treason. So, why would I support one? As a last step before we just start shooting at our opposition. To this end I would support any move including state nullification efforts, law suits, states engaging in fiscal disobedience by not sending in state dollars to the feds, making automatic deductions for taxes illegal, any step and every step before we dissolve the republic and open fire.

      Comment by Thor | January 7, 2014 | Reply

      • You are being manipulated, Thor.

        You HAVE NO IDEA how dangerous such a convention is. I have set forth the arguments against it with hyperlinks. If you will not open your mind and learn, then we are too foolish to survive.

        Maybe my next paper will help. I list 9 well known techniques of propaganda which the convention of states conspirators are using against YOU and the American People.

        Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2014 | Reply

  18. Our People are the problem, not the Constitution reminds me of G. K. Chesterton’s “What’s Wrong With the World.” 2 excerpts ~ Part 1. The Homeless Man – 5. The Unfinished Temple.

    The task of modern idealists indeed is made much too easy for them by the fact that they are always taught that if a thing has been defeated it has been disproved. Logically, the case is quite clearly the other way. The lost causes are exactly those which might have saved the world…

    …Of course, I mean that Catholicism was not tried; plenty of Catholics were tried, and found guilty. My point is that the world did not tire of the church’s ideal, but of its reality. Monasteries were impugned not for the chastity of monks, but for the unchastity of monks. Christianity was unpopular not because of the humility, but of the arrogance of Christians. Certainly, if the church failed it was largely through the churchmen. But at the same time hostile elements had certainly begun to end it long before it could have done its work.

    http://www.readbookonline.net/read/19314/55220/

    Hostile Elements ~ see YouTube ~ “We Are in Two Wars” 3 Parts ~ Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

    See YouTube ~ “Enumerated Powers, the Tenth Amendment, and Limited Government” Uploaded on Nov, 20, 2010 ~ Federalist Society’s November 18, 2010 National Lawyers Convention ~Ted Cruz @ 46:07. Constitutional Amendments @ 52:27. Now you know why Ted Cruz is Levin’s favorite candidate.

    Comment by Merry Christmas | December 23, 2013 | Reply

  19. Reblogged this on Biblical Times News.

    Comment by screenshot | December 22, 2013 | Reply

  20. Reblogged this on CITIZENS MILITIA of MISSISSIPPI.

    Comment by CMM | December 22, 2013 | Reply

  21. […] The “Convention of States” Scam, the War over the Constitution, and how the States Sold the Rese… […]

    Pingback by The “Convention of States” Scam, the War over the Constitution, and how the States Sold the Reserved Pwers to the Feds. by Publius Huldah | CenLA Patriots | December 22, 2013 | Reply

  22. PH, Your grasp of this issue, the desire of a few misguided elitist to coerce a wanting and willing audience into the further disregard and dissolution of our precious Constitution, is refreshingly timely. There are those of us who become so distraught with the foolishness that passes for governance we find ourselves in need of such insight. It is indeed the war for my generation. A few passing observations:

    The discerning of reality, truth and perception is, by course, an opinionated affair.

    The bNFL crowd are the Constitutional Agnostics of our day.

    Federal government is and always will be a monstrous demon to be at all times monitored and beaten back.

    The slavery component of 1787 has been replaced with the Homosexual and Abortion agenda.

    Your historical walk through the Article V process had me with a ringside seat. I could feel the drama.

    Were an Article V Convention to be called for just imagine the philanthropical onslaught. It would make Bilderberg look like a, pardon the pun, tea party. The coordinated, collective propagandizement of the masses would doubtlessly lead to a reality show call-in vote for delegates via facebuuk. Just imagine what amendments Gates, Streistand, Gore, Soros, Zuckerberg and their ilk could impose!

    I will go on record as stating my trust in certain individuals were it left to me to convene such a convention. At the top of my list would be Dr. Walter Wiliams followed by Dr. Thomas Sowell, Lt. Col. Ret. Allen West, Rep. Trey Gowdy, Dr. Larry Arn, Rev. Billy Graham, Matt Kibbe, Ted Nugent, Dr. David Jeremiah, Edward Thomas, Newton Leroy Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly and of course you, my dearest! Earning my respect are Cal Thomas, Dr. Charles Krauthammer, Lt. Col. Oliver North and Madea! My circle of influence is entirely inadequate, obviously, but that doesn’t prevent me from voicing my thoughts. 

    Our elected officials are so far removed from reality it becomes pointless to expect a modicum of rational though to emanate from their collective body. As oft stated, never was the office considered a career. Term limits now!

    As noted by Neal Postman “We the People” are now numb and lethargic. We have assimilated to the game plan. Every issue must be either black or white, democrat or republican, conservative or liberal. The divide and conquer mentality. Saul of Alynski must be flinging darts from hell.  The mind feared most is the one open enough to see neither side has the answer. Each side of this coin seeks only to be “the side up”. It is what lies between the two sides, the metal, that matters. Regardless of which side is up the middle remains visible. Each face of the coin mask the metal. But it is the metal that is of consequence. And so we now find ourselves a country of the instantly educated, a digi-cultivar of altruistic lemmings.

    To suppose that our federal government is simply “too big to tame” is beyond preposterous. Simply shut the fed down. It is the worst nightmare of a government gone wild, the very thought that a free people could not only exist but thrive without them. But then emotion, pride and infantile revenge are about all that drive most “conservatives” today. The need to be “right” is a foolish childlike reaction borne of fear. Not much differentiates a comma from a coma. I do not feel compelled to sway you of anything. I do feel obligated to hand my grandchildren a free and prosperous land and enough knowledge, wisdom and courage to preserve it. 

    Comment by wisdomdepot | December 19, 2013 | Reply

    • A few weeks ago, I gave a speech in Elmer, New Jersey. My hostesses took me to Philadelphia and we toured the historic sites. Independence Hall was my favorite – it was magical being in that room where George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison, & Alexander Hamilton met and spoke and drafted our Constitution. So, yes, Madison’s Journal of the events which transpired is fully alive to me. And to you too!

      We were given such a wondrous gift – but few today are willing to bother with it. They are too enamored with their own opinions.

      I fear we will pay a heavy price. We are seeing here & now why countries collapse.

      The proponents of the COS [those who understand what it is really about – as opposed to those who have been deceived] are striking the final blow to our constitutional republic.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 19, 2013 | Reply

  23. I still disagree with you on a number of these issues. I think that the biggest problem with many of your blog posts is that you focus on the ideal that you envision rather than the reality that is possible.

    We’re never going to get our leaders to follow the constitution as it was originally intended. That is a fact. It would require a civil war just to get rid of social security and medicare and even that might not work. Unraveling the FDA, EPA, DOE, and other alphabet soup agencies would take generations and there are simply too many vested interests for it to happen organically through election. Our country is very centrist and people like those agencies. If we talk about the ideal, you are correct, but the ideal isn’t possible.

    Therefore, I believe that amendments to the constitution, from a pragmatic perspective, are necessary. I think that they could maybe provide the shock to the system that would be necessary to get us back towards the right track. For example, I know that you don’t like the BBA, but a well written one (absent the problems that you point out) would have a better chance of restricting government spending and therefore ending SS/medicare/medicait/etc than would wishful thinking. Because that’s all we have right now– wishful thinking.

    Also, I would note that I am more strictly libertarian/minarchist than you are. I think that all government is immoral, including many of the enumerated powers. Therefore, were a Concon called, I would be against the federal government have *any* powers other than tax (not income), military, and courts, and maybe not even those.

    Comment by Ross | December 18, 2013 | Reply

    • Just one comment for now before I retire for the night: Our “agreement” or “disagreement” with others is never properly the issue. The only issue is Truth. As a people, we have forgotten that. We now believe that there is only “opinion”, and there is no way to evaluate “opinions”.

      But if something is True, then one ought to accept it. If something is false, then one ought to reject it. Is this not self-evident?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 18, 2013 | Reply

      • Well, that depends on what your goal is. What you say is true regarding the enumerated powers. But if you really want to reform our society, that *can’t* happen without constitutional amendments. It’s simply impossible. We will never be able to properly educate every citizen nor will we be able to dig out the entrenched interests. Do you disagree with me?

        Assuming that you agree with me (and that your goal is to reform our society), whether what you say is true or not is *irrelevant* to our conversation. It is a non sequitor. Whether I reject it or not doesn’t matter.

        The *only* way to reform our society is through a civil war (god forbid) or amendments that people pay attention to. Sure, we already know through the Federalist Papers the original intent of our enumerated powers. However a constitutional amendment that, for example, clarified the meaning of the commerce clause (and was supported by both the states and Congress) could not be ignored.

        It is just far more likely to be successful that hoping that “education” will eventually succeed. So I ask you again: is your goal to formulate the ideal structure of our society or to pragmatically push for real reforms? Based on reading most of your papers, I would guess that you lean towards the ideal over the pragmatism.

        Comment by Ross | December 18, 2013 | Reply

        • Ross,

          1. The problem with our society is the moral & intellectual corruption of the people. They stuff themselves with food; numb their minds with TV; refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, inactions, and their lives; refuse to learn our Founding Principles; and are so filled with ignorant conceit that they go around the internet pontificating on matters of which they are ignorant. Our people show a complete rejection of personal responsibility.

          I see people all over the internet pontificating about constitutional matters who don’t know what they are talking about. And they refuse to learn. This is the ignorant and obstinate conceit of which I speak. And they can’t think. Our “intellectuals” can’t think either. All the People and the “intellectuals” can do is regurgitate what they have been told. They have no idea of the activity of “critical analysis” and “critical thinking”. They don’t know Logic. In short, the intellectual standards have collapsed as well as the moral standards.

          THIS moral & intellectual collapse is the cause of our problems. THAT can’t be fixed by gathering together corrupt & ignorant representatives of a corrupt & ignorant populace and have them propose amendments to a Constitution they never read – or as is more likely to happen – come up with a new Constitution with its own new method of ratification.

          At the time of our Founding and Framing, the American People were of such character that they ratified a document which was [for the most part] a 5000 year miracle.

          But our mindset has changed since that time. We were turned away from the Principles which made us Great & Strong; and were indoctrinated with different principles which stupefied, corrupted, and demoralized us.

          2. The People don’t pay attention to the Constitution we have. Why will they pay attention to amendments?

          3. And your argument seems predicated on the notion that the Constitution is “defective” and needs “fixing” or “clarification”. But I have shown that the Constitution has been ignored, and is very clear for the most part.

          It is true that some clauses require research:

          a) It took me 5 minutes to learn the original intent of the “interstate commerce clause” – 5 minutes! I prove it here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/82/

          But the proposed amendments re the interstate commerce clause INCREASE THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOV’T re interstate commerce far beyond the original intent of that clause.

          b) It took me about a month to uncover the original intent of the “natural born citizen” requirement. I had to dig & dig to find online documents from our Founding Era and before to prove the understanding of that phrase. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/natural-born-citizen/

          4. In my papers, I prove the original intent of the Constitution; and urge Americans to learn it and return to it. I don’t know that such is “idealism” – when we were a better People, we embraced it!

          5. Re education: I have striven to make it simple & easy to understand for The People: I boiled it down to a one page chart: http://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chart-showing-federal-structure-3-1-part-a2.pdf

          I am suggesting we return to that. The People understood this once. Can’t they understand it again?

          6. Our People are the problem. Not the Constitution. The Progressives want to get rid of our Constitution and this Art. V convention is how they plan to do it. It really is, as Jordan Sillers admitted, about “re-writing the Constitution”.

          Today, people don’t want to take responsibility for THEIR PERSONAL FAILURES to be the “guardians of the Constitution”. They would rather blame-shift: BLAME THE CONSTITUTION! THAT’s what’s broken!

          7. Here is a fictional account of an Art. V convention written by a former navy seal. It illustrates James Madison’s warnings against an Art. V convention. Go here and read post 13: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3100993/posts

          And it’s nice to hear from you, Ross.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 19, 2013 | Reply

          • 1) I am thinking more in terms of individual amendments than a convention, hopefully avoiding the disaster of a wholly new constitution.

            2) Re “clarification”: my point is that because we have gotten so far off of what was originally intended, today people believe that what we have is what the constitution is supposed to be. I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with what was written originally, but given our mindset of people today, there is a problem.

            A clarification that says, for example, “Congress’s powers under art 1, sec 8, cl 3 are restricted to making laws only about tariffs and excise taxes between states and all prior case law regarding this clause is null and void” would be much harder for judges to ignore and would be a big step towards restoring true constitutional governance. Especially since it would require popular support to pass such an amendment. And it would be much easier to get that popular support than it would be to re-educate the populace. One such idea is much easier to digest than the broad strokes that you propose.

            3) Regarding your (1), if that is truly the case, I don’t see any hope at all. We’re outnumbered and the government educates the next generation. Every judge in the country focuses on case law from SCOTUS.

            I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think that it could ever work in practice.

            Comment by Ross | December 19, 2013

  24. And if we were to have a Constitutional convention today, there may be many other groups that will want to keep adding this amendment and that amendment. There is no guarantee that the amendments you or your group wants will even be considered or selected. And who will be the delegates? Will they be statesmen (or stateswomen) of the same caliber as the Founding Fathers?

    What are the possibilities that the convention will propose bad amendments? I think most of us can agree that the 16th, 17th, and 18th amendments were bad amendments, yet they were ratified.

    What if the convention worked out ok and it only passed one or two good amendments. What if it were successful? Would this make having the next convention that much easier? Would the next convention pass only good amendments? Would this start a perpetual convention process?

    Also remember the Courts will try to ‘interpret’ the new amendments and we don’t know how that will go.

    Congress (and all of the federal government) is not following the Constitution today, why add more amendments? Will they magically start following them?

    Comment by Mickey White | December 18, 2013 | Reply

  25. I guess that it has not dawned on these fools that if “We the People” force our politicians to follow the Constitution, there would be no need for a convention of the states. Allowing self serving Politicians to stay in office is the real problem.

    Comment by L.E. Liesner | December 18, 2013 | Reply

    • Yes, truer words were never spoken. WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who brought on this mess.

      And I know activists on our side who still can not name two of the enumerated powers of Congress. With that level of ignorance & apathy, a peaceful & pleasant recovery is impossible.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 18, 2013 | Reply

  26. Do you know that when I went to bookmark you blog site…google wouldn’t let me? hmmmmm

    Thomas Perdue 28BJU Virtual Financial Group 817-337-7134 tlperdue99@gmail.com

    Comment by tlperdue | December 18, 2013 | Reply

    • subscribe then! And thank you for wanting to book mark it. I work so very hard.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 18, 2013 | Reply

      • “I work so very hard” …gross understatement.

        Comment by wisdomdepot | December 19, 2013 | Reply

  27. Well, you know, if the Republican party would STAND UP for the conservative beliefs its BASE stand for, and if our leaders wouldn’t say their conservative base IS THEIR BIGGEST PROBLEM we wouldn’t have this problem now would we?? Tell the so called republicans in DC to do their job and maybe they will get my confidence and vote back. Until then, I look at you as I would look at a democrat.
    Rita

    Comment by Rita Buck | December 18, 2013 | Reply

    • Why on earth would you do that?

      You seem to be for an Article V Convention. So please address each of my arguments against it. Which FACTS do you reject? It isn’t responsible to merely sling an insult!

      It seems also that you are reacting emotionally to this critical issue. Is that good enough for your grandchildren?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 18, 2013 | Reply

  28. Slight issue regarding the above interpretation of Article V; I shall explain.

    First, the impetus for actually calling a Constitutional Convention is, as you put it, within the purview of Congress, but only at the catalyst of the States.

    Let’s look at the quote:

    —-
    “The Truth is the States have no authority to call the convention. That power is delegated to Congress. Article V says:

    “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…” [emphasis mine]

    Congress calls it. Not the States.”
    —-

    Note that the States must first *apply* for a given Convention (which, incidentally, is done by two-thirds of the States). That’s not actually having a Constitutional Convention, that’s simply getting together enough applications from enough States to actually apply for one.

    Then, the Congress shall actually call for a Convention, assuming that enough States have applied.

    Interestingly, lots of questions have arose regarding this issue:

    1. Is there a time limit on the application of States to apply for a Convention?
    2. Must Congress absolutely call for a Convention if the requisite number of applications is achieved?

    Even further is the issue that you’ve brought up (as have many others) on whether or not Congress has the authority to state exactly what would be considered at such a Convention, as well as any other logistics thereof.

    From a puristic viewpoint (considering that we’ve only ever had one Constitutional Convention in America to date), it would appear to me that once the States were to submit the requisite applications for a Convention, Congress would have the obligation (?) to fulfill the application, but then Congress would be hands-off until such time as the States gave Congress whatever it is that the Convention agreed to, at which point such Amendment(s) would either get sent out to the States for ratification and/or the process would involve Congress somehow (I would lean towards the former, as this part of Article V suggests that the States would have the authority to pass along Amendment(s) back to Congress).

    Great blog!

    -Phil

    Comment by Phil_GA | December 18, 2013 | Reply

    • Phil, I have pointed out so often that Congress calls it when 2/3 of the States apply for it that I thought all knew that.

      In every post, I can’t repeat everything I have already said in other posts and papers. I try to focus on the precise issue which is troubling the reader and address only THAT.

      And you say there are unanswered questions about how such a convention would be conducted? Say it ain’t so!
      Actually, I believe James Madison and Phyllis Schlafly already pointed that out.

      I don’t see that what appears to you to be the “purist viewpoint” is the actual case; bearing in mind the “necessary & proper” clause – and the fact that if Congress makes a law addressing these matters, what are the proponents of the COS to do? They are on record as rejecting NULLIFICATION.

      But I see an awful lot of fantasy thinking going on about this “convention of states” business. The States will save us? I don’t think my State is the only State with a corrupt state government of ignoramuses who love federal funds more than their own grandchildren.

      Thank you for your kind comments about my blog – there is enormous effort put into every paper.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 18, 2013 | Reply

    • Congress calls a convention while deciding other details; such as where the convention may meet, how delegates are to be paid and how much, how many delegates there will be and how they are chosen. Note that nothing in the constitution requires nor guarantees that delegates to a con-con will be elected by the people. Congress is given a free hand to determine the method of selecting these delegates. Congress itself could choose to make the appointments of delegates, congress could provide that the state legislatures appoint delegates; in short congress is given a blank check on determining how delegates are to be chosen. It could provide for their election, but it is not required that they do so.
      JBS CONCON Packet info
      jbs.org

      Comment by Mickey White | December 19, 2013 | Reply

      • Right! Please make that point everywhere you can. The People are falling for the lies they are being told.

        Comment by Publius Huldah | December 22, 2013 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 879 other followers

%d bloggers like this: