Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Comments on the proposed Amendments to the Tennessee Constitution

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

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

Constitutional Amendment #1

Question:

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

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

Why I oppose it:

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

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

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

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

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

Constitutional Amendment # 2

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

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

This is the proposed Amendment:

Question:

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

and

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

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

Why I oppose it:

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

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

Constitutional Amendment # 3

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

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

Question:

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

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

Why I oppose it:

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

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

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

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

Constitutional Amendment # 4

Article IX, § 1 currently reads:

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

Question:

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

Why I oppose the Amendment:

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

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

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

Be prudent and be suspicious.

Endnotes:

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

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

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

October 23, 2022 Posted by | Tennessee Constitution | , | 9 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnotes:

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

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

October 3, 2022 Posted by | "convention of states", Article V, Article V Convention, constitutional convention, COS, Publius Huldah, re-writing the Constitution, Rep. Jodey Arrington, runaway convention, The Archivist of the United States | , , , , | 32 Comments

Mark Meckler’s “COS” Board Member has drafted new Constitution which imposes gun control

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

Our Framers understood that a free State cannot exist without an armed and trained populace (i.e., the Militia). Accordingly, they wrote a Constitution which prohibits the federal and State governments from infringing the natural right of the People to keep and bear arms.

Under our Constitution, the federal government has no authority to make any laws whatsoever over the Country at Large restricting the rights of the People to keep and bear arms. Gun control is not an enumerated power. Furthermore, the Second Amendment expressly forbids the federal government from infringing the right of the People (the Militia) to keep and bear arms.

The States are also prohibited from infringing the right of the People to keep and bear arms by Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution. Those two clauses provide for the Militia of the Several States; and implicitly prohibit the States from making any laws which would interfere with the arming and training of the Militiamen in their States. 1

Applications for Congress to call a convention under Article V, US Constitution

But various groups, such as Mark Meckler’s Convention of “States” (COS) organizations, have been lobbying State Legislators to pass applications asking Congress to call an Article V Convention.

Whether or not State Legislatures should ask Congress to call an Article V Convention is one of the most important – and contentious – issues of our time. The Delegates to such a convention, as Sovereign Representatives of the People, have the power to throw off the Constitution we have and propose a new Constitution, with a new and easier mode of ratification, which would create a new government. 2

The Pennsylvania Senators Roundtable Discussion

On November 8, 2021, several Pennsylvania Senators conducted a roundtable discussion about whether they should pass Mark Meckler’s “COS” application (SR 152) for Congress to call an Article V convention. Mark Meckler and his allies were present in support of SR 152. Firearms Owners Against Crime was present in opposition to SR 152. Gun Owners of America was there also. 3

Much of what Meckler said at the roundtable is not true. But this paper focuses on his comments ridiculing his opponents’ concerns that, if there is an Article V convention, we could lose our existing Right to keep and bear arms.

Meckler showed up at the roundtable decked out in gun garb; and, after dropping names to show his connections with gun rights organizations, proceeded throughout the discussion to preen his commitment to “the Second Amendment”. He ridiculed the warnings that if there is an Article V Convention, Delegates would have the power to impose a new Constitution which, among other horrors, strips us of our Right to keep and bear arms without infringement.

Meckler said that Chuck Cooper, a litigator for the NRA, is on COS’s Legal Advisory Board and has written an open letter saying, “…it’s a ridiculous argument that there could be a runaway convention and we could lose our Second Amendment.” [13:31 – 13:57]

A bit later on, Meckler said:

“…Professor Robbie George at Princeton who is considered the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America is on our Legal Advisory Board. … [43:02 – 43:25]

So who is Professor Robbie George? And who says he is the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America?

Robbie George (Robert P. George) was on the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project. The National Constitution Center is a quasi-official branch of the federal government.

Robbie George and three others have drafted a new Constitution which severely restricts the Right of the People to keep and bear arms! His new Constitution says at Article I, Sec. 12, clause 7:

“Neither the States nor the United State [sic] shall make or enforce any law infringing the right to keep and bear arms of the sort ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes, provided that States, and the United States in places subject to its general regulatory authority, may enact and enforce reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others.”

So Robbie George’s new Constitution:

  • authorizes the state and federal governments to ban the possession of all arms unless they are “ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes”. Who will decide what arms are “ordinarily” used for self-defense or recreation? The governments will decide.

  • authorizes the state governments and the federal government (in those places subject to its “general regulatory authority”), to enact and enforce “reasonable regulations” on the bearing of those arms they permit us to have. What’s a “reasonable” regulation? The governments will decide; and,

  • authorizes the state and federal governments to strip us of our right to keep even those arms “ordinarily used for self-defense”, if someone in the government (presumably a judge) decides you are a danger to yourself or others.

We live in a time when Christians who read the Bible; People who read the Constitution; and Moms who speak out at School Board meetings against pornography in the schools, mask mandates, or the teaching of critical race theory, are labeled “domestic terrorists”.  Should “domestic terrorists” be allowed to keep and bear arms? Of course not- they are dangerous!

At the roundtable, John Velleco of Gun Owners of America said:

“The questions that we’re dealing with on this is how will this [Meckler’s “COS” application SR 152] impact the Second Amendment? Because that’s, as an organization, that’s all we care about. … So we need to determine if this is something that seriously could impact in a negative way the Second Amendment, then we are compelled to engage 100%. … our bigger issues in Pennsylvania are passing constitutional carry.” [1:07:05 – 1:07:51]

Yet even though Meckler’s Board Member Robbie George had already participated in the drafting of a new Constitution which imposes gun control; and thereby would rescind the Second Amendment, Meckler responded:

“And I will tell you there are 5 Million people in this country … that are signed up for convention of states. Right here, there are 90,000 in this state. 90,000!

The question was asked, will this help pass constitutional carry? The answer is hell yes, it will! Because right now, our activists are very angry with gun rights organizations in this state. And they’ll not support anything that these gun organizations are doing, because they’re now sworn enemies on Article V. … But I will say, on Kim Stolfer’s organization, they should be working with these organizations. Every one of those 90,000 should be signed up with these organizations and members of these organizations fighting for everything they [the gun organizations] want.” [1:21:21 – 1:22:05]

So Meckler, who postures as a “Second Amendment guy” [13:31-13:57] , threatened that unless Kim Stolfer supports Meckler’s SR 152 application for a convention, Mecker’s alleged 90,000 supporters in Pennsylvania 4 will not support anything Kim Stolfer’s gun rights organization does!

Look behind the Curtain

This push for an Article V Convention is the most vicious bait and switch ever perpetrated on the American People. It’s all about getting a new Constitution under the pretext of getting amendments. 5 If Congress calls an Article V convention, Robbie George’s proposed Constitution, or another just as tyrannical, can be proposed. 6 And since any new Constitution will have its own new mode of ratification (such as a national referendum), it’s sure to be approved.

The solution to our political and economic problems is to read and enforce the Constitution we already have. States and local governments and individual Citizens can take a giant step forward by not taking federal funds to participate in unconstitutional federal programs.

And rescind your States’ existing applications for an Article V convention! It doesn’t matter what the ostensible purpose of a convention is, as set forth in a State’s applications. Once the Convention assembles, the Delegates can do whatever they want including approving the Constitution Robbie George participated in drafting, or another Constitution which will also legalize the tyranny which is taking over our Country.

We are to fight tyranny by resisting it; not by legalizing it.

Endnotes:

1 With the Militia Act of 1792, Congress required all able-bodied male Citizens in the Country (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and under 45 to buy a rifle, bayonet, ammo & ammo pouch, and report to their local Militia Unit for training. States may not lawfully do anything to interfere with this constitutional grant of power to Congress.

2 This is shown in these flyers:

3 These are two large gun rights organizations. John Velleco and Val Finnell appeared for GOA; Kim Stolfer of Pennsylvania appeared for Firearms Owners Against Crime.

4 It should be enlightening to ask Meckler to provide documentation of his claim to have 90,000 supporters in Pennsylvania. Legislators in other States have looked behind the curtain and found “COS” claims of support to be false: See Phony Petitions and Polls.

5 James Madison expressly warned of this stratagem: See this flyer at footnote 2.

6 Altogether, the National Constitution Center has three proposed new Constitutions. All of them transfer massive new powers to the new federal government.

Additional proposed Constitutions are discussed here.  One of them, the Constitution for the Newstates of America, was produced some 60 years ago [and factions have been pushing for an Article V convention ever since]. Under the Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Article I, Part B., Sec. 8 provides that the People are to be disarmed. Article XII, Sec. 1, provides for ratification by a national referendum – so whoever controls the voting machines will determine the outcome.

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

December 18, 2021 Posted by | "convention of states", armed citizens, Article V, Article V Convention, Constitution Drafting Project, constitutional convention, convention lobby, Convention of States project, COS, gun control, Mark Meckler, Militia, National Constitution Center, Red Flag Laws, Robbie George, Robert P. George, runaway convention, Second Amendment | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 42 Comments

STOP an Article V Convention – read the proposed new Constitutions which our enemies want to impose

 

November 17, 2021 Posted by | Article V, Article V Convention, constitutional convention, convention lobby, Convention of States project, Delegates to a convention can't be controlled, Faithful Delegate Laws, Federal Convention of 1787, Mark Levin, Mark Meckler, North American Union, Publius Huldah, Purpose of amendments to constitution, re-writing the Constitution, Regulation Freedom Amendment, Rulemaking by Executive Agencies, runaway convention, simulated convention, Task Force Report on Building a North American Community, The Liberty Amendments, why convention was added to Art. V | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments

Defeat “COVID” Mandates by restoring the Genuine Meaning of the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses

By Publius Huldah

Someone asked me why I write on the US Constitution when the US Supreme Court won’t enforce it.

This is why:  Our Declaration of Independence recognizes the self-evident Truth that Rights come from God, and that they are unalienable.  Accordingly, there are certain areas of your life which are off-limits to government regulation – you have an “immunity” from governmental regulation of these areas.

But since the federal and state governments are refusing to recognize our Rights, it falls on us to boldly step up to the plate and insist that our Rights be respected.  You have no lawful, moral, or religious duty to submit to a government when it violates our Constitution and seeks to take from you the rights God gave you.

Governments do not have constitutional authority to force you to take the COVID JAB.

And in this paper I show that the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses of the US Constitution prohibit the federal, state, and local governments from requiring you to be “jabbed” or putting you into a concentration camp if they assert that you are at “high risk” of getting infected [i.e., those who are 65 years of age or older].

So Americans are going to have to man-up and assert their God-given rights.  But before you can do that, you must understand what your Rights are and what the Constitution says.

Our Constitution of 1787 is a glorious Document. But we didn’t read it, we didn’t adhere to its genuine meaning, and we permitted judges to redefine its terms. We must put a stop to that. The following draft 1 Resolution for State and local governments shows how, by restoring the genuine meanings of the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses, we can defeat “COVID” tyranny.

Right to Freedom from “COVID” mandates – Model Resolution for State and local governments

I. The Law

WHEREAS, our Declaration of Independence is the Fundamental Act of our Founding and part of the Organic Law of our Land, and recognizes that our Rights come from the Creator God; that among these Rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; and further, that the purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us; and

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States is one of enumerated powers only; and We The People did not grant to the federal government power over the Country at Large to interfere in medical or health matters; to dictate that injections be administered to The People; to impose quarantines or “lock-downs” for real or pretended diseases; to establish internment (concentration) camps for the purpose of confining whomsoever the federal government wishes to confine; to require that The People wear devices such as face masks, or to obtain and carry internal passports; or to exercise any other such control over the sanctity of our persons; and

WHEREAS, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides,

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”; and

WHEREAS, the privileges and immunities clauses of the Constitution of the United States provide:

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” (Article IV, § 2)

“…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” (§1 of the Fourteenth Amendment); and

WHEREAS, the due process clauses of the Constitution of the United States provide:

At the Fifth Amendment, that “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”; and

At §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”; and

WHEREAS, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England set forth at Book I, Chapter I, pp 128-140 (J.B. Lippincott) [link] the common law definitions of “privileges” and “immunities”; and shows that “immunities” refers to those areas of personal liberty which are free from regulation and control by civil governments, to-wit:

  • The God-given Right of Personal Security consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation – and specifically that a person has the Right to preserve his health from such practices as may prejudice or annoy it [p. 132 at 4.];
  • The God-given right of Personal Liberty consists of an individual’s right of locomotion, of changing situation, or moving his person to whatsoever place his own inclination may direct; that no person may be imprisoned or confined except pursuant to the lawful judgment of his equals; the right of habeas corpus; and the prohibition against excessive bail; and
  • The God-given Right of Property consists of the absolute and inherent Right of an individual to the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of his acquisitions; and that no person may be divested of his property, but by the judgment of his peers; and

WHEREAS, “due process of law” is a term with a precise technical import going back to the Magna Charta; and means that a person’s Life, Liberty or Property cannot be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! [See Raoul Berger’s masterful work, “Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment”, at Part I, Chapter 11 “Due Process of Law” link]; and

WHEREAS, it is a fundamental Principle of Anglo/American Jurisprudence that when Framers of a Constitution or Statute use a term which has been defined at the Common Law, that is the meaning to be assigned to the term in the Constitution or Statute (United States v. Smith (1820) link) & Raoul Berger’s chapter on “Due Process” at p. 222]; and

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the State of Ohio declares at Article I: Bill of Rights that

“Section 1: Inalienable rights. All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.”

“Section 3: Right to assemble. The people have the right to assemble together, in a peaceable manner, to consult for the common good; to instruct their Representatives; and to petition the General Assembly for the redress of grievances.”

“Section 20: Powers reserved to the people. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people; and all powers, not herein delegated, remain with the people.”

II. Violations by the federal government of The Law

WHEREAS, under the pretext of protecting the public from the allegedly dangerous “COVID” disease, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of the federal government has been involved in the development and administration of a so-called “vaccine”; but that there is considerable evidence that such are not “vaccines” in the traditional sense of the word – but are injections designed to alter human DNA and replace it with a man-made DNA, and to destroy our God-given immune systems; and further that “COVID vaccines” have resulted in many deaths and disabilities among injected persons and are expected to result in a great many more deaths among injected persons in the coming years; and

WHEREAS, also under the pretext of protecting the public from the allegedly dangerous “COVID” disease, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has made plans [here & here] to relocate selected Persons against their wills to internment (concentration) camps which are now, with the connivance of certain State governments, being set up throughout the Country; and

WHEREAS, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is an unconstitutional federal agency which is not authorized by our Constitution to exist; accordingly all of its actions are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; and

WHEREAS, by these above-described acts, the federal government has usurped powers not delegated, and hence its acts are not law, but are altogether unauthoritative, void, and of no force; and

WHEREAS, such acts are also unconstitutional as in violation of the right of free assembly within the meaning of the First Amendment to the US Constitution; and

WHEREAS, such acts also deprive Citizens of their God-given Immunities from civil government’s regulation of their Persons and Personal Liberty, and deprive them of their God-given Right to the free use and enjoyment of their Property – all in violation of Article IV, §2, US Constitution; and

WHEREAS, such acts also deprive Citizens of life, liberty and property without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

III. State and local governments

WHEREAS, certain “private” businesses have been seeking to bring about the forced injections of Citizens with the so-called “COVID vaccine” by threatening to fire such Citizens unless they submit to the injection; and further, that for State and local governments to permit such tyranny violates that Principle, set forth in our Declaration of Independence, that the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us (which governments are to do by protecting us from those who seek to take our rights away from us); and that just as civil governments may not lawfully deprive The People of their God-given Rights and Liberties, neither may private persons or businesses; and

WHEREAS, for the State or any local government to impose lock-downs, mandate social distancing, order the closures of churches and selected businesses, and impose limitations on crowd sizes, would unlawfully restrict the Rights of The People to freely assemble; and that in the State of Ohio, such would violate Article I, Sections 1 and 3 of the Declarations of Rights set forth in the State Constitution; and

WHEREAS, for the state or local governments to cooperate with the unconstitutional federal agency known as the “Center for Disease Control and Prevention”, in its unlawful and tyrannical plan to incarcerate in internment (concentration) camps, Citizens against their wills, would unlawfully deprive the Citizens of Ohio of their Rights of free association and free assembly; and would also trespass on their Immunities against civil government’s control of their persons within the meaning of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and would also deprive Ohio Citizens of life, liberty and property without due process of law, also in violation of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and

For the state or local government to mandate the wearing of face masks also violates the God-given Right of Personal Liberty.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. That all acts of the federal government described hereinabove in Part II are unconstitutional and are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

2. That all acts of State and local governments described hereinabove in Part III would also be unconstitutional and unauthoritative, void, and of no force; and that this body [identify whether it’s the State legislature or a County or municipal governmental body] will vigorously oppose all such unlawful acts.

3. That this body intends to vigorously uphold the Right of the Citizens to be free from the requirement of forced injections, mask wearing, social distancing, lock-downs; and will not permit Ohio Citizens to be relocated against their wills to the internment (concentration) camps now being planned by the unconstitutional federal agency known as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

It is so RESOLVED, this ________ day of _____________, 2021.

Signatures, etc.

Endnote:

1 This is a draft Resolution suggested by me for consideration by State and local governments – I used Ohio to illustrate that States must consult their own State Constitutions in addition to our federal Constitution.

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

August 24, 2021 Posted by | Blackstone's commentaries on the Laws of England, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, covid, covid virus, COVID-19 scam, due process clause, privileges and immunities | , , , , , , | 21 Comments

Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God

Of course, you must make your own medical decisions. But I urge you to get fully informed on this issue – listen to the Frontline Doctors before making the decision for yourself – and especially for your minor children.

August 18, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | 25 Comments

Declaration of Independence: Rights come from GOD, and the purpose of government is to secure the rights GOD gave us – by protecting us from those who seek to take our Rights away from us.

In 10 minutes, Pastor Wallace lays out THE FIRST PRINCIPLES of government. We can not fix our Country unless we understand and return to these Founding Principles recognized in our Declaration of Independence:

  1. All men are created equal.

2. Rights come from God.

3. The purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us.

4. When a government doesn’t secure the Rights God gave us, we have the right to throw it off and set up a new government.

But let us NOT blame the governments for our problems. WE are the ones who rejected the Principle that the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us. WE wanted a government which stole for us – which benefited us at the expense of others – which allowed us to live at other peoples’ expense – which shielded us from the consequences of our own vices – which protected us from the risks and uncertainties of life – which provided for our needs – and which allowed us to shirk personal and family responsibilities.

We must repent of our misuse of government and restore government to its rightful purpose.

Here I show how our Constitution lived up to this Founding Principle of the purpose of government: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/how-our-federal-constitution-secures-our-god-given-rights/

June 26, 2021 Posted by | Declaration of Independence, Pastor Earl Wallace, Rights | , , | 25 Comments

Article V convention: a globalist coup to impose a new Constitution

Joanna Martin, J.D. (Publius Huldah) warns of what’s really behind the push for an Article V convention: to move us into the New World Order or impose a Communist dictatorship.

Presented to the Buncombe County Republican Party in Asheville, North Carolina on May 25, 2021.

Here are the Exhibits referred to in the presentation:

Click to access exhibits-to-presentation-in-north-carolina-during-may-25.pdf

June 2, 2021 Posted by | Article V, Article V Convention, constitutional convention, Globalism | , , , , | 23 Comments

The Death Blow: an Article V convention to replace our Constitution

By Publius Huldah

Open your eyes and see what is going on in our Country.  If you don’t face up to Reality right now and act accordingly, we are doomed.

The fight over whether to have an Article V convention isn’t between Republicans and Democrats, or liberals or “conservatives”.  It is spiritual warfare between those who want to keep our Biblically based Constitution of 1787; 1 and godless revolutionaries who want to get rid of our Constitution and set up the New World Order.

1. Our institutions have long since been captured by the enemy

The transformation of our Country into the New World Order has been going on for well over 100 years. A brief summary of the capture of our institutions is set forth here. But even worse than the capture of our institutions, was the ideological subversion of the American People: former KGB officer Yuri Bezemov described that ideological subversion here.

Now that all of our institutions have been captured, and great numbers of Americans have been ideologically subverted; the War is turning “hot”: The enemy now seeks to finish the job of destroying us and our Country.

2. Our Republic was overthrown in the last election

The essential characteristic of a “republic” is that power is exercised by representatives elected by the People.  Due to last minute unconstitutional changes to State elections laws which made massive election fraud possible, 2 the last election was stolen; and we lost our Right to choose our representatives. They are now chosen by those who control the voting machines.

3. Violent insurrections in the cities

The violent insurrections in the cities are carried on by Marxist-trained communist agitators who mean to kill us and burn down our cities – they say so here and in many other videos which have been on the internet. And we’ve seen on the internet videos showing that the violent insurrections are supported by various members of Congress and the pretended Vice-President of the United States.

4. Replacing our Constitution at an Article V convention

So now the time is ripe for the forces of the New World Order to move in for the final kill: To get rid of our Constitution. That Constitution is the only thing [other than the Mercy of God] remaining which stands between us and hell of the New World Order.

If Congress calls a convention under Article V, US Constitution; our present Constitution of 1787 can – and almost certainly will – be replaced with a new constitution. 3

Congress is the body which has the constitutional authority to “call” – organize and set up – an Article V convention. Congress – the same Congress which is now controlled by those who egg on the insurrections which are destroying our cities and intimidating the inhabitants.

And it is that Congress which has the power to determine how Delegates to an Article V Convention are selected – and even who they will be. The Constitution is explicit:

Article V grants to Congress the power to “call” the Convention.

Article I, §8, last clause, grants to Congress the power to make the laws necessary & proper to carry out its power to organize and set up the convention.

Accordingly, the Congressional Research Service Report of April 11, 2014 [link] recognizes:

“First, Article V delegates important and exclusive authority over the amendment process to Congress…”

“Second…Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including… (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates…” (p.4)

So, among its other powers respecting a convention, Congress may appoint the Delegates – they may appoint themselves! And those members of Congress who support the violent insurrections, or are getting money from the Chinese Communists, and other subversives may well be the Delegates!

If State Legislatures give to Congress the power to call an Article V Convention, there is nothing any of us can do to stop it if Congress appoints subversives & revolutionaries as Delegates.

And while Congress is deciding who the Delegates will be, and where the Convention will meet, what will be going on outside the Capitol Building? Busloads of armed and violent Antifa and BLM rioters were sent into Minneapolis to intimidate the Jury in the Chauvin trial; 4 and to commit murder, mayhem, and burn down the City in the event Chauvin were acquitted [link]. Will these thugs also descend on the District of Columbia when Congress is deciding who the Delegates will be?

And what about the convention itself? Will the Delegates be intimidated by armed and violent Antifa and BLM thugs surrounding the place the Convention meets? Will these thugs demand that the proposed Constitution for the New Socialist Republic of North America [link] be imposed? Will they demand the Marxist Constitution George Soros wants [link]? Will the Chinese Communist Party demand that the Delegates impose the Constitution they want? Or will the globalists demand that the Delegates propose a new Constitution which transforms the formerly sovereign United States into a member state of the North American Union [link]? Will the Delegates be in such fear of their lives that – as in the Chauvin Jury – they surrender to the demands of the mob?

And know this: Any constitution has its own mode of ratification. The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America [link] provides at Article XII, §1 that it is ratified by a referendum called by the President. The States don’t vote on it; they are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

And as to ratification of the new constitution by national referendum: we would see once again, that Lenin was right when he said the people who vote don’t determine the outcome of elections – the people who count the votes do.

5. And it is Republican State Legislators who are putting us in this fatal danger

The Article V Convention is being marketed by demagogues and hirelings to State Legislators (primarily Republicans) as the “conservative” solution to our problems. They falsely assure State Legislators that they will select Delegates and have complete control over what they do.5 And since Legislators of today often know little to nothing about our Founding Documents, History, or Civics; and have been ideologically subverted as well, they fall for the marketing.

And, like many others, they are shutting their eyes to the unpleasant Reality described above. But that is the context in which an Article V convention would take place today.

These are the ones who will turn over to Congress the power to get the new Constitution which will be the death blow to this Country.

May God have mercy on their souls – they will have much to answer for. It is their adamant refusal to listen to the warnings against an Article V Convention which has grave moral implications for them.

Endnotes:

1 Our Constitution of 1787 was based on God’s Model of civil government [link].

2 The unconstitutional changes to our State Election Laws which created the opportunities for the fraud are described in a series of papers here.

3 See, e.g., “What the Convention Lobby isn’t telling you about our Declaration of Independence” [link] & “How to get a new Constitution under the PRETEXT of proposing Amendments” [link].

4 Alan Dershowitz speaks here of how US Congresswoman Maxine Waters called for riots if Chauvin weren’t convicted, thereby terrorizing the Jurors into finding Chauvin “guilty”.

5 Eminent conservative constitutional litigators William Olson & Herb Titus have rightly described such assurances as “false” and “reckless in the extreme” [link].

April 24, 2021 Posted by | Article V Convention, Black Lives Matter | 33 Comments

When the feds violate the Constitution, should we blame the Constitution?

By Publius Huldah

In Rob Natelson’s paper [link], “The Solution is a Convention of the States”, he makes claims about what our Framers said is the purpose of amendments to our Constitution which are not true. He also gives false assurances about the safety of a convention called by Congress under Article V of the Constitution.

At the outset, we should note that the title of Natelson’s paper incorporates a stratagem which creates the false belief that the States control the convention. The belief is false because the convention provided for by Art. V of the Constitution is a federal convention called by the federal government to perform the federal function of addressing our federal Constitution. It is not a state function; accordingly, the term, “convention of States”, does not appear in Article V.  So the “Convention of States” organizations (COS), of which Natelson is “senior advisor”, renamed the convention provided for in Article V as a “convention of the States”; 1 and re-defined it as “a convention controlled by State Legislatures”.

Now let’s examine various other claims on which COS builds its case.

1. The fabricated George Mason quote

COS claims that our Framers gave us the convention method of getting amendments so that when the federal government “violate[s] its constitutional limitations”, we can get a convention to “make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.” Or, in plain English, when the feds violate the Constitution, the solution is a convention to amend the Constitution.

But our Framers didn’t say that. The falsity and absurdity of COS’s claim is exposed here. What our Framers actually said is that the purpose of amendments is to correct defects in the Constitution. And they recognized that the purpose of a convention is to get another Constitution. James Madison warned that those who secretly want to get rid of our Constitution would push for a convention under the pretext of getting amendments.

2. Natelson’s claims re using amendments to “overrule bad Supreme Court decisions” & “restrain federal power”

Natelson admits that the Framers said we can use amendments to correct defects in the Constitution; but then muddles up what the Framers actually said with what they never said, thereby seemingly legitimizing his misleading claim that the Framers envisioned that we could use amendments to “overrule bad Supreme Court decisions” and “restrain federal power”.

As an example of a “bad” Supreme Court decision, Natelson claims that “[i]n early 1795, the States ratified the 11th Amendment to reverse an overreaching Supreme Court decision”.

The decision he is referring to is Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) [link]; and what he says about it isn’t true. What Chisholm actually stands for is this: Our Constitution originally delegated to federal courts the power to hear cases “between a State and Citizens of another State” (Art. III, §2, cl.1). But when a Citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia, States were outraged! Georgia objected. In Chisholm, the Supreme Court decided the case in accordance with the Constitution and held that Chisholm could maintain his suit.

But the States didn’t want Citizens of other States suing them. So the States ratified the 11th Amendment which took away from the federal courts the constitutional authority to hear cases filed by a Citizen against another State. So the 11th Amendment illustrates what our Framers actually said is the purpose of amendments: to fix defects in the Constitution.

Natelson also claims that our Framers said we could use amendments to “restrain federal power” when the federal government “exceeded and abused its powers”.

Again, Natelson muddles up the true and the false when he fails to distinguish between usurpations of undelegated powers and abuses of delegated powers.

No Framer said that amendments could be used to restrain usurpations of powers not delegated. And in Federalist No. 49 (last para) James Madison says the opposite. He warns against another convention and says, “occasional appeals to the people [a convention] would be neither a proper nor an effectual provision” for restraining the federal government within its legal powers.

But when the federal government abuses a delegated power, an amendment could be appropriate. Here’s an example: the Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional since tariffs are authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 1. But it was abusive because it benefited infant industries in the Northeast at the expense of the Southern States. So what’s the remedy for such abuse of delegated power? Article I, §8, cl. 1 could be amended to say that Congress may impose tariffs only to raise revenue to carry out the enumerated powers; and may not impose tariffs in order to benefit one section of the Country at the expense of other sections.

3. Natelson’s proposed “corrective reforms” to the Constitution

Natelson says he wants a convention to get a balanced budget amendment (BBA); to curb “undemocratic and unfair” regulations; to reverse “liberal-activist Supreme Court decisions”; to impose term limits; and get other amendments “to restrain federal power”.

But as anyone who has read it knows, our Constitution already limits the federal government to a handful of enumerated powers. The powers are listed here. The categories of cases federal courts are authorized to hear are listed at Art. III, §2, clause 1. All the problems of which COS and Natelson complain are the result of violations by the federal government of the existing constitutional limitations on their powers – and the States’ acquiesce in such violations!

Balanced Budget Amendment: Our Constitution already limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. But for 100 years, everyone has ignored the existing limits on federal spending. A BBA would replace the existing enumerated powers limitation on federal spending and create a new constitutional authority to spend on whatever the President or Congress put into the budget! A BBA thus legalizes spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers, and transforms the federal government into one which has constitutional authority over whatever Congress decides to spend money on.

Federal Regulations: Article I, §1 vests all lawmaking powers in Congress. So all regulations issued by federal executive agencies which purport to apply to the Country at Large are unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1; and as outside the scope of the enumerated powers. An amendment such as Natelson proposes is a grant of constitutional power to federal executive agencies to make Laws.

Supreme Court Opinions: This shows why Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. This shows why the opinions banning Christian speech in the public square are unconstitutional. The remedy our Framers advised for such usurpations is impeachment and removal from the Bench (Federalist No. 81, 8th para), and nullification by the States of unconstitutional opinions [link].

Natelson cannot produce any writing from a Framer which says that when the Supreme Court violates the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution. Our Framers were not silly men. And what would such an amendment as Natelson proposes say? That federal judges must obey the Constitution? Article VI already requires that. Does Natelson propose amendments which list the subjects on which federal courts may not act? But Art. III, §2, cl. 1 already lists the kinds of cases they may hear. But we ignore those existing limitations.

Term limits amendment: If we learned anything from the last election, it should be that we will not in the foreseeable future have an honest federal election. With H.R.1, Congress is likely to attempt to “legalize” the unconstitutional shenanigans which enabled the theft of the last election. So your vote won’t matter!

But even if we had honest federal elections, consider this: As you decrease the powers of elected members of Congress by making them transient beings – you increase the powers of the “deep state”. With term limits, elected members of Congress would become like train cars passing in the night – the power would be solidified in the nameless, faceless, un-elected bureaucrats who infest the Executive Branch.

Anyone who analyzes the amendments proposed by COS and their allies can see that their amendments increase the powers of the federal government by delegating powers already usurped, granting new powers, or stripping States of their existing powers. See: ‘Mark Levin’s “Liberty” Amendments: Legalizing Tyranny’ [link]; ‘COS Project’s “simulated convention” dog and pony show and what they did there’ [link], & ‘The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster’ [link].

4. Amendments to “prevent federal abuse” can backfire!

When amendments correct defects in the Constitution, they are clearly a good thing. The 12th & 13th Amendments, like the 11th Amendment, corrected defects in the Constitution. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment extended Citizenship to the freed slaves and provided constitutional authority for the much needed federal Civil Rights Act of 1866.

But amendments added to prevent federal abuses backfired. In Federalist No. 84 (10th para), Alexander Hamilton warned against adding a Bill of Rights to our Constitution. Under a Constitution of enumerated powers, the government may lawfully do only what the Constitution permits it to do. So

“…why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? … it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power...” [emphasis mine]

But Hamilton’s warnings were brushed aside.

Beginning in the 1920s, Justices on the Supreme Court – who were “disposed to usurp” – fabricated a doctrine under which they claimed that §1 of the 14th Amendment “incorporated” various parts of the first 8 Amendments so that those Amendments restricted the States! This how the Supreme Court usurped power to dictate how the States must apply the Bill of Rights. As shown here (at 12. & endnote 4), this is the theory the Supreme Court used to ban Christian speech from the public schools and County courthouse lawns.

Throughout the years, the Supreme Court has extended its “incorporation doctrine” to dictate to the States how they must apply the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments [link].

Furthermore: Amendments usher in implementing federal statutes and executive agency regulations – and judicial power over the subject of the Amendment becomes vested in the federal courts. Article III, §2, cl.1, says, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases … arising under this Constitution …”

Beware of what you ask for.

5. Natelson’s assurances that a convention would consist of “state delegations” sent “to propose pre-specified amendments” are false and reckless in the extreme 2

Natelson presents nothing to support his assurances. He can’t because his assurances are contradicted by the Constitution; and by the federal “amendments” convention of 1787, which is our sole historical precedent for a federal convention called by a Congress to address our federal Constitution.

Article V, US Constit., says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem 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…” [italics added]

Article I, §8, last clause, US Constit., says Congress shall have the Power…

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” [italics added].

So Congress calls the convention and makes the laws necessary and proper to organize the convention.

The April 11, 2014 Report of the Congressional Research Service [link] shows that Congress recognizes that Article V grants to Congress exclusive authority to set up a convention:

“Second, While the Constitution is silent on the mechanics of an Article V convention, Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including (1) receiving, judging, and recording state applications;(4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates…” (page 4).

So Congress has the power to receive and judge the applications; how to count the applications, which ones to count, whether to aggregate the different forms of applications, etc.

Nothing in the Constitution permits State Legislatures to dictate amendments to be considered. The convention is the deliberative body.

Nothing in the Constitution requires Congress to permit States to select Delegates. Congress – the same Congress which Natelson tells us is “abusive”, “mendacious” and “revels in its power”- has the power to select the Delegates. Congress may appoint themselves as Delegates. 3

6. The People have the power to take down and set up governments

The push for an Article V convention is a hoax. The Globalists who stole the Election want a new Constitution. They are using “getting amendments to rein in the federal government” as a pretext for getting a convention where a new Constitution is sure to be imposed. Madison expressly warned of this stratagem [link].

Our Declaration of Independence is part of the “Organic Law” of our Land. It recognizes that The People take down and create governments. When Delegates meet in convention to address a Constitution, they are the Sovereign Representatives of The People. They cannot be controlled by the “creatures” of Constitutions previously ratified by the People [link].

In Federalist No. 40 (15th para) James Madison invoked the “transcendent and precious right” of a people to throw off one government and set up a new one as justification for the Delegates to the federal “amendments” convention of 1787 ignoring their instructions to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation, and instead writing a new Constitution with its own easier mode of ratification.

Accordingly, even if the “abusive” and “mendacious” Congress doesn’t “revel in its power” to appoint Delegates, but graciously permits States to select Delegates, State Legislatures have no competent authority to control Delegates at a convention called by Congress pursuant to Article V. The Delegates, as Sovereign Representatives of The People, have the power to eliminate the federal & state governments! 4

Heed the warning of the great statesman Daniel Webster:

“The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.” Daniel Webster, 4th of July Oration, 1802.

Endnotes:

1 In a speech Natelson gave on Sep. 16, 2010 [link at top of p. 2], he said he would no longer call what he wanted a “constitutional convention”; but would ‘put our concepts on “reset” ’ and henceforth call it a “convention of states”.

2 Noted conservative constitutional litigators and law professors William Olsen and Herb Titus have already recognized that COS’s “false assurances” are “reckless in the extreme” [link].

3 Page 40 of the CRS Report says it’s been recognized that there doesn’t seem to be any “… constitutional prohibition against [U.S.] Senators and Representatives serving as delegates to an Article V Convention..”

4 The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America [link] does just that. Article XII, §1 provides for ratification by a referendum called by the President. Do YOU trust the voting machines?

March 21, 2021 Posted by | Amendments to the Constitution, Article V Convention, Congressional Research Service Report, constitutional convention, convention lobby, Convention of States project, Daniel Webster, Delegates to a convention can't be controlled, Federal Convention of 1787, Incorporation doctrine, Purpose of amendments to constitution, Rob Natelson | , , , , , , , , , , | 19 Comments

%d bloggers like this: