Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Article V Convention: How “Individuals of Insidious Views” Are Stealing Our Constitution

By Publius Huldah

Q: How are amendments to the federal Constitution made?
A: Article V of our Constitution provides two method of amending the Constitution:

  1. Congress proposes amendments and presents them to the States for ratification; or
  2. When 2/3 of the States apply for it, Congress “calls” a convention to propose amendments.

Q: Which method was used for our existing 27 amendments?
A:  The first method was used for all 27 amendments including the Bill of Rights which were introduced into Congress by James Madison. 3

Q:  Is there a difference between a constitutional convention, con con, or Article V Convention?
A:  These names have been used interchangeably during the last 50 years.

Q:  What is a “convention of states”?
A:  That is what the people now pushing for an Article V convention call it. 

Q: Who is behind this push for an Art. V convention?
A:  The push to impose a new Constitution by means of an Article V convention (and using a “balanced budget” amendment as justification) started in 1963 with the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.  1    Today, it is pushed by:

Q:  Why do they want an Article V Convention?
A:  The only way to get rid of our existing Constitution and Bill of Rights is to have an Article V convention where they can re-write our Constitution.  Jordan Sillars, Communications Director for Michael Farris’ “Convention of States”, 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].

Q: How can they impose a new constitution if ¾ of the States don’t agree to it?
A: Only amendments require ratification by ¾ of the States (see Art. V). But a new constitution would have its own new method of ratification – it can be whatever the drafters want.  For example, the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a referendum called by the President (See Art. XII, section 1).

Q: Can a convention be stopped from proposing a new Constitution?
A:  No.  Once the delegates are duly appointed & assembled, they are acting under the inherent authority of A People to alter or abolish their form of government [Declaration of Independence, 2nd para]; and have the sovereign power to do whatever they want at the convention.

Q: Is this what happened at the Federal Convention of 1787?
A:  Yes.  Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74) to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.  But the delegates ignored this limitation and wrote a new Constitution.  Because of this inherent authority of delegatesit is impossible to stop it from happening at another convention.  And George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won’t be there to protect you.

Q: Did the delegates at the Convention of 1787 introduce a new mode of ratification for the new Constitution?
A:  Yes. The Articles of Confederation required the approval of all 13 States for amendments to the Articles to be ratified.  But the new Constitution provided it would become effective if only 9 of the 13 States ratified it (Art. VII, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution).

Q:  Who would be delegates at a Convention?
A:  Either Congress appoints whomever they want; or State governments appoint whomever they want.

Q: Who would be chairman at a convention?
A: We don’t know.  But chairmen have lots of power – and George Washington won’t be chairman.

Q: But if the States appoint the delegates, won’t a convention be safe?
A: Who controls your State?  They will be the ones who choose the delegates if Congress permits the States to appoint delegates.  Are the people who control your State virtuous, wise, honest, and true?

Q: But aren’t the States the ones to rein in the federal government?
A: They should have been, but the States have become major consumers of federal funding.  Federal funds make up almost 35% of the States’ annual budgets. The States don’t want to rein in the feds – they don’t want to lose their federal funding.

Q: Did Thomas Jefferson say the federal Constitution should be amended every 20 years?
A: No! In his letter to Samuel Kercheval of July 12, 1816, Jefferson wrote about the Constitution for the State of Virginia, which he said needed major revision.  And remember James Madison’s words in Federalist No. 45 (3rd para from the end):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which … concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” [boldface mine]

The powers delegated to the feds are “few and defined” – what’s to amend?  All else is reserved to the States or the People – so State Constitutions would need more frequent amendments.  Do you see?

Q:  Did Alexander Hamilton say in Federalist No 85 (next to last para) that a convention is safe?
A:  No!  He said, respecting the ratification of amendments, that we “may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority”.  But today, our State legislatures don’t protect us from federal encroachments because:

  • We have been so dumbed down by progressive education that we know nothing & can’t think;
  • State legislatures have been bought off with federal funds; and
  • Our public and personal morality is in the sewer.

Q: Did Our Framers – the ones who signed The Constitution – think conventions a fine idea?
A:  No!

“Conventions are serious things, and ought not to be repeated.”

  • Alexander Hamilton wrote of:

“…the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded…”  Federalist No. 85 (9th para)

“3… an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it … would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. … it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America…” [boldface mine]

Q:  Do we have “violent partizans” or “individuals of insidious views” who seek a “dangerous opportunity to sap the very foundations of the fabric” of our country?
A: Yes, and they have been pushing for an Article V convention since 1963.

Q:  What did our Framers say about the purpose of amendments to the Constitution?

  • the novelty and difficulty of what they were doing would require periodic revision (Mr. Gerry on June 5, 1787);
  • remedy defects in the Constitution (Hamilton on Sep. 10, 1787);
  • useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers” (Federalist No. 85, 13th para); and
  • “amendment of errors” & “useful alterations” suggested by experience (Federalist No. 43 at 8.) 3

Q: But those pushing for a convention say the remedy for politicians who violate the Constitution is to amend the Constitution.
A:  Yes, that is their crazy claim:  that even though for over a century, the feds have been usurping hundreds of powers not delegated in the Constitution, all we have to do is amend the Constitution, and everyone will start obeying it. 4

Q: But they say the feds would obey future amendments because the feds haven’t violated recent amendments, such as women’s suffrage.
A: Of the 15 amendments ratified since the 12th in 1804; 10 increased the powers of the feds (13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, 26th); and 4 were “housekeeping” amendments (20th, 22nd, 25th, 27th) – so of course the feds “obeyed” those. 5

Q: What about their claim that the feds violate the Constitution because they don’t understand it?
A:  Rubbish! Our Constitution is so simple that Hamilton said The People were “the natural guardians of the Constitution”. The Oath of office at Art. VI, clause 3, implicitly requires the feds to learn it.  For phrases the feds have perverted – such as the “interstate commerce”, “general welfare” & “necessary and proper” clauses, a quick look into The Federalist Papers reveals the original intent.  I illustrate that here and elsewhere.

Q: How do we get rid of the bad amendments such as the 16th &17th?
A: Repeal them the same way we repealed the 18th amendment.  Instead of sending to Congress people who don’t know the Constitution; send people who know the Constitution and commit to repealing the bad amendments.  And if they don’t act to repeal them, fire them!

Q:  Why was the “convention method” put in Article V?
A:  We don’t really know why it was put in because Madison’s Journal of the Convention does not tell us.  This chart compiles the references in Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 to what became Article V.

  • Law professor John A. Eidsmoe  suggests the convention method of Article V was added rather hastily, at the time when the delegates were closing their deliberations, and this provision did not receive the careful attention given to most other provisions of the Constitution.
  • It may also have been a compromise designed to induce  George Mason & Randolph to sign the Constitution.  6

Q: Why can’t what happens at the convention be controlled by federal or State laws?
A: We are naïve and tell ourselves that people will “play by the rules”.  So we assume all we have to do is make some laws saying delegates can’t exceed the scope of the call, and everyone will obey it.

But if they don’t, who is going to enforce these laws you have so much faith in? The feds? Obama would love the constitution for the Newstates of America – it makes him dictator!  He won’t prosecute delegates who violate the call. Your State government?  They sold you out to the feds long ago. Errant delegates will be protected by the feds.   It doesn’t matter what a law says if it isn’t enforced.

Ever since 1963, globalists have intended to use an Article V convention as the means for imposing a new Constitution on us.  Today, George Soros – the destroyer of countries – is financing the push for a convention.  Don’t let him and his minions destroy America.


This little chart illustrates our Constitution & Declaration and the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government.  For 100 years, we elected politicians who ignore them. We don’t understand that the amendments proposed by Michael Farris, Mark Levin, Randy Barnett, & Nick Dranias increase the powers of the federal government because we don’t know the list of enumerated powers in the Constitution. You could remedy that:  Print out the chart and read the Constitution & Declaration!

As The Blue Tail Gadfly said, even though “the Constitution is not being enforced, it still declares this federal government LAWLESS! The true rule of law is still on our side, but not for much longer if the Constitution is allowed to be foolishly altered.”



2 Those pushing for a convention are not telling the truth about what Madison said in his letter to Turberville.  The only way you can know who is telling the truth is to study the letter.

3 Madison did not endorse the “convention method” of proposing amendments.  He always said that when States want amendments, they should instruct their congressional delegation to pursue it:

  •  In his letter of 1788 to Turberville, he speaks of the two methods of proposing amendments:

“2. A Convention cannot be called … without the previous application of ⅔ of the State legislatures…The difficulties … must …be much greater than will attend the origination of amendments in Congress, which may be done at the … [instruction] of a single State Legislature… ”

  • How was the Bill of Rights handled?  On May 5, 1789, Rep. Bland (p. 258-261) introduced into Congress a petition from Virginia for an Art. V Convention to propose amendments.  On June 8, 1789, Madison (p. 448-460) circumvented Bland and introduced the amendments for Congress to propose to the States.  On September 24, 1789, Congress sent them to the States for ratification.

4 If your spouse violates the marriage vows, amend the vows and your marriage will be saved!
If motorists violate the speed limit, amend the speed limit and safety will be restored!
When people violate the Ten Commandments, amend the Ten Commandments!
When politicians violate the Constitution, amend the Constitution, and all will obey it!

 5 It is important to understand that the proposed amendments drafted by Randy Barnett, Mark Levin, Nick Dranias, and Michael Farris all increase the powers of the federal government by legalizing powers they have already usurped – or they delegate new powers to the federal government.

6 The Constitution was a product of compromise:  Alexander Hamilton was an abolitionist – but the Constitution permitted slavery.  James Madison wanted to stop the importation of slaves immediately (Federalist No. 42, 6th para); but Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 permitted it to continue 20 more years. Hamilton said the Constitution wasn’t perfect, but “is the best that the present views and circumstances of the country will permit” (Federalist No. 85, 6th – 8th paras).  The “convention” provision of Art. V seems to have been added – on the last day of deliberations (Sep. 15, 1787) – to induce Mason & Randolph to sign the Constitution.  But they still refused to sign. PH

Note: This last series of Questions and Answers was suggested by an esteemed colleague:

Q: Are there unanswered questions about an Article V Convention?
A: Yes!  Article V is utterly silent about the following and more:

  • How would delegates be selected?  And who would select them: Congress? The States? A national Referendum?
  • Would the States even be represented at the convention? If so, how many delegates and/or how many votes would each State have at a convention?
  • Would a convention be open or closed to the public and the media?  (The Convention of 1787 was closed.)
  • Could a convention be limited to consideration of a single amendment, or several amendments?  [The plural language of Article V, “a convention for proposing amendments,” suggests the convention could not be limited to a single amendment.]
  • Could a convention consider an entirely new constitution?
  • How would state calls for a convention be tabulated? For example:   If 20 states call for a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment; 10 states call for a convention to consider a term limits amendment; and 4 states call for a convention to consider a right-to-life amendment, will these all be counted together to constitute 34 state calls for a convention?  And will the convention be authorized to consider all three amendments even though none of them individually have been called for by 34 states?  May it consider other amendments?   Must all of the state calls for a convention agree on the precise wording of the amendment to be considered?  And could a convention alter the wording of the proposed amendment, or must it be passed or rejected in exactly the form the states called for?   Will state calls for a convention many years ago be counted in determining whether 34 states have called for a convention?  For example, in the 1970s and 1980s about 32 states called for a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment.  If two more states called for a convention today, would that constitute 34 states?  Article V says nothing about any time limit on such calls.
  •  If a state calls for a convention, may the state later rescind its call?  Article V is silent about this question.  Several of the states that called for a convention in the 1970s and 1980s later rescinded their calls, but no court has ever determined whether those rescissions are valid.
  • What rules would a convention follow, and who would make those rules?  Article V says if two-thirds of the states apply for a convention, “Congress … shall call a convention.”  Since Congress and Congress alone calls a convention, presumably Congress and Congress alone has authority to make rules for a convention — rules for delegate selection, voting, election of officers, agenda, scope of business, and other matters.  What if the Senate and the House cannot agree on rules for a convention?  Nothing in Article V gives the states any authority whatsoever to demand that a convention follow certain rules, or to condition their calls for a convention with the requirement that certain rules or limitations be followed.
  • If Congress can make rules for a convention and does so, what guarantee exists that the convention will abide by those rules?

The plain fact is, the Constitution is utterly silent about all of these questions.  As convention proponents confidently and dogmatically proclaim their answers to these questions, please ask yourself:  Do they have any authority for their claims?  Are you willing to just take their word for it?

Q:  Why are convention proponents so certain that a convention will be run by constitutional conservatives?
A:  This is a complete mystery.  There is no such guarantee.  Considering liberal dominance of the media, law schools, well-funded legal foundations, and state and federal governments, liberal dominance of a convention is not only possible but probable.

Q:  Is the drive for a convention led by conservatives?
A:  Some conservatives support a convention, along with numerous liberals and liberal organizations who are waiting in the wings to jump in and dominate a convention once it has been called.  But many conservatives strongly oppose a convention.  So please do not be misled into thinking support for a convention is the “default” conservative position.

Revised June 23, 2014

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

February 27, 2014 - Posted by | Article V, Article V Convention, constitutional convention, Convention of States project, Jordan Sillars, re-writing the Constitution | , , , , ,


  1. Planning a convention to rewrite the Constitution borders on invoking the Alien and Sedition Act, by using the Convention process to overthrowing the government to create a new government. The amendment process maintains control by elected officials without causing mayhem, which in effect could cause a civil war. It sounds as if this is an extreme analysis of the possibilities to occur but ulterior motives of factions can’t always be discerned.


    Comment by Yvonne Davis | August 6, 2015 | Reply

    • The convention process has been used before to draft a new Constitution. Read about the “amendments” convention of 1787. The delegates were instructed, by the Continental Congress and by their respective States, to propose amendments to our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation. But they drafted a NEW Constitution with a new method of ratification.

      Understand that the Declaration of Independence, 2nd paragraph, recognizes the natural right to alter or abolish a Form” of government and replace it.

      It is absolutely impossible to control delegates to a convention:


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 6, 2015 | Reply

  2. Reblogged this on lindakenney01.


    Comment by llkenney | June 24, 2015 | Reply

  3. It looks like many are hoping to restrict our ability to use the tools our founders left us to push back against a runaway federal government. What is their legal remedy to return us to the rule of law and a civil society? The tone of their discussion indicates more passion than reason in their positions.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by mhg | March 20, 2015 | Reply

    • It’s because they [the COS operatives and wind-up dolls] reject, or don’t know about, the two remedies our Framers actually advised us to use:

      1) Vote the usurpers out of office; and

      2) Refuse to obey unconstitutional acts of the federal government: See, e.g., In Federalist No. 46, Madison says, respecting unconstitutional acts of the fed gov’t:

      • the People can refuse to cooperate with fed officers [7th para];

      • State officials can oppose the feds [7th para];

      • State Legislatures can invent legislative devices to impede & obstruct the fed gov’t in its unconstitutional schemes [7th para];

      • States can cooperate in concerted plans of resistance [8th para];

      • States can easily defeat the fed gov’ts schemes of usurpation [10th para]; and

      • as the last resort, States must defend themselves from the fed gov’t – that’s why The People are armed.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2015 | Reply

    • you’re not wrong, however, what you can’t back away from is, American’s are too stupid to be trusted… I went to those … [two words deleted by PH]… public schools, and didn’t buy into any of that corrosive nonesense. I have no problem obeying the law, it’s the federal bureaus that have the problem, the treasury department contrators a.k.a. the IRS, have a complete title of regulations that ‘govern’ the job they do, the only problem there is they don’t pay it any mind really. So you’re worried that Stalinists might co-opt the COS? They’ve already co opted the federal bureaus……I’m not afraid of the COS.


      Comment by mc wolf | March 8, 2017 | Reply

      • It is true that Americans have the government they voted for. They believe whatever candidates for office tell them; and they don’t test candidates’ knowledge of the Constitution!


        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 8, 2017 | Reply

  4. Here is the TRUTH about the Convention of States.

    It is NOT funded by Soros or any of the left. In fact, they DESPISE an Article V Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments.

    Also, an Article V Convention is NOT a constitutional convention, That is another lie.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Rick Bulow | February 23, 2015 | Reply

    • Well, you do recite those COS talking points! And sling their smears!

      The convention at issue is the one provided for at Article V – the one “called” by Congress to propose amendments. That convention has gone by various names in recent decades: “constitutional convention”, “con con”, “Article V convention” and since September 16, 2010, “convention of States”. See Rob Natelson’s speech, given Sept 16, 2010 where he announced the NEW NAME he would henceforth use. See the top of the 2nd page of his speech:

      Did you fall for that marketing gimmick? Just call it something different and people will believe it’s something different.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 24, 2015 | Reply

  5. This is pathetic garbage. Either the author is a completely ignorant nitwit, or a leftist propagandist pushing an agenda.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by pcisbs | January 2, 2015 | Reply

    • Really! Why don’t you pick out one statement I made which is False – and provide a hyperlink to an original source document proving that I am wrong.

      And you, sir, are rude.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 2, 2015 | Reply

      • I agree, There is no call for that sort of rant.


        Comment by mc wolf | March 8, 2017 | Reply

  6. […] Article V Convention: How “Individuals of Insidious Views” Are Stealing Our Constitution « Publ…. […]


    Pingback by Article V Convention: How “Individuals of Insidious Views” Are Stealing Our Constitution « Publius-Huldah’s Blog | Carl Stevenson's Blog | April 23, 2014 | Reply

  7. “Who is behind this push for an Art. V convention?
    A: The push to impose a new Constitution by means of an Article V convention (and using a “balanced budget” amendment as justification) started in 1963 with the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. 1 Today, it is pushed by:

    Hundreds of progressive (Marxist) groups listed at
    George Soros
    Michael Farris, Esq., of “Convention of States” (COS), and author of the “parental rights” amendment which delegates power over children to the federal & state governments.
    Nick Dranias, Esq., of the Compact for America, Inc., whose “balanced budget” amendment imposes a new national sales or VAT tax on the American People.
    Former law professor, Rob Natelson.
    Nullification denier and law professor, Randy Barnett, who proposes an amendment which delegates to Congress the power to regulate “emissions” [EPA now exercises usurped powers].
    Nullification denier and birther denier, Mark Levin, Esq., whose “balanced budget” amendment legalizes Congress’ unconstitutional spending and does nothing to control the debt.”

    My goodness. What crawls from under the rocks.


    Comment by zbigniewmazurak | April 20, 2014 | Reply

    • Yes, but “The Folks” don’t understand it. They believe whatever Mark Levin or Michael Farris tell them. Blind faith. I fear our days are numbered here. It is impossible to overstate how stupid the American People have become. And mean! My hate mail comes from “patriots”!!!!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 20, 2014 | Reply

      • You’re kidding, right? Your hate mail comes from “tea party” “patriots” who claim they want limited govt.?


        Comment by zbigniewmazurak | April 20, 2014 | Reply

        • No, I am not kidding. The smears circulated about me by ‘patriots’ boggle the mind. Americans are not thinkers – they are ignorant and have no discernment. They know that something is terribly wrong here – and they want to “do something”. So charlatans offer them a quick fix – a panacea – and they are all for it.

          The Truth takes a little explaining. Due to the damage done to their minds by the progressives who have dominated public education almost from the beginning, Americans are not intellectually equipped to handle logical arguments. They just go by their emotions – their guts. Whatever makes them “feel good”.

          So when presented with the choice between charlatans who offer them a quick and easy fix – and those few who tell them the hard truth – Americans go with the charlatans. And see the few people like me as the enemy. They don’t understand that the charlatans are not on their side – that the few like me are the ones on their side. Americans have no discernment. None.

          Not until recently did I understand how Hitler was able to deceive the German people – people are stupid. And easily deceived. This is why they have always [except for a brief period here] lived under tyranny.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 21, 2014 | Reply

          • Well, if that’s true, I don’t think there is any more hope for America, or the Western civilization in general.


            Comment by zbigniewmazurak | April 21, 2014

          • Well, watch Lord of the Rings – get the extended version if you can. I assume people in Poland have DVD players, etc.? I haven’t been there since the mid 1970’s and wasn’t invited into any homes….


            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 21, 2014

  8. Reblogged this on Gail O'No and commented:
    Amazing how so many people are believing that holding a constitutional convention will stop Obama. Even the Tea Party is getting behind the Con Con perhaps calling it a Convention of States makes it easier to fool the masses. Do they believe the States will control the out come of a convention? It is like watching a ship sink with no way to stop it!


    Comment by gailono | March 9, 2014 | Reply

  9. What a twisted piece of written garbage!

    The very method, the only method that stands a chance of rescuing our republic – THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL METHOD – Article V’s second provision, and you purport it to be a danger.

    Your mind is twisted!

    The Constitution has been under assault for over 100 years and is daily being stripped away further, and you cry the sky is falling because Mark Levin and others are trying to restore the Republic via Article V?!

    You are a TRUE numbskull filled with some sort of misguided ideological perversion!

    Get your head out of your now infiltrated, but once-great, John Bircher propaganda works and start thinking for yourself!


    Comment by William | March 2, 2014 | Reply

    • Come on, now! There is no need to pretend that you want to restore the Republic! If you did, you wouldn’t write the way you do. You are a progressive – only they spew vitriol like yours. So! Which group are you in?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 2, 2014 | Reply

    • It’s easier to destroy than create. William, your comment is nothing other than an ad hominem attack. It contains no substance. Table some facts or stay at home. Levin may have good intentions, I don’t know. By reading the summary on the jacket of his book, one might thinks so, but the substance of the book reveals otherwise. Publius-Huldah is parsing it for us, and while one does not need to agree with her surmise, one is not limited to mundane character attacks in order to further a point.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by styersbd | March 3, 2014 | Reply

    • William, it is as simple as this. Do you trust the liars in DC to hold a convention to change our constitution when in Article V there is no “limits” on what they can change. Do you realize they have already drafted a new constitution and with that constitution they have given the USA a new name, Newstates of America. To give the liars of our time the ability to change the Constitution is in one word you may relate to “stupid”.


      Comment by gailono | March 9, 2014 | Reply

      • Newstates of America? This is the first I have heard of it.


        Comment by styersbd | March 9, 2014 | Reply

        • Yes, it’s been waiting in the wings for 50 years – the progressives have been wanting an Art. V convention for 50 years to get it proposed.
          It is sickening. The states are dissolved and replaced by regions answerable to the new national government.
          Here is the text of the proposed Newstates Constitution

          And here is former US supreme Court chief Justice Warren Burger’s April 1986 letter to Phyllis Schlafly about it:

          They always planned to impose this at an Art. V convention. Note that the method of ratification of the new Constitution – a Referendum called by the President (Art. XII, Sec. 1) – takes the matter away from the States and turns it over to the President – as soon as the delegates propose it.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 9, 2014 | Reply

          • Thanks for those links, I don’t expect to be able to read it right away, we’re grilling some steaks today. We’re sunny and 70 degrees, yay!


            Comment by styersbd | March 9, 2014

          • Gee! Wish I were there! Enjoy!!!!


            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 9, 2014

          • You’d be quite welcome. It’s not just about the weather, we’re good company. You might suffer through pics of my grandchildren, though.
            I’m reading about Newstates now. Daylight Saving Time wreaks havoc on my sleep schedule, so I just run with it.


            Comment by styersbd | March 10, 2014

          • Appears the Senate will be a department of the presidency consisting of former presidents and so on…
            Seems to me states have already given up much of their sovereignty preferring instead to be administrative branches of federal government. It’s part of the nationalization procedure.
            I’m reading Section 1 of Article XII a bit differently. If we use the current Constitution to amend it, Article V should still apply until the new constitution could be implemented. Is this a trick? Was the current constitution imposed in a similar fashion in 1787, in other words while the convention was called to amend, the surprise was when a completely new constitution resulted. How different was the ratification procedure between the Articles and the Constitution? What was the legal status of the 4 states who were holdouts after ratification? I assume they did not go to war over it.


            Comment by styersbd | March 14, 2014

          • If the delegates at an Art. V convention propose the Constitution for the Newstates of America, then it goes directly to the President to call a referendum. As soon as it is approved at the referendum, our existing Constitution is history. And since voter turnout in key districts will be 138% of registered voters, approval at a referendum is assured.

            Yes, the States have voluntarily surrendered their sovereignty in exchange for federal funds. They are now no more than administrative subdivisions of the federal government. John Barnes pointed this out in his article I linked to in several of my recent papers.

            I address here
            your question about the differences in ratification of amendments to the Articles of Confederation and ratification of the new Constitution which was drafted at the federal convention of 1787.

            Art. VII, clause 1 of our existing Constitution addresses the status of the States who declined to ratify the new Constitution: They would not be affected by the new Constitution but could remain lawfully outside of it.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 14, 2014

  10. Michael Farris, Esq., of “Convention of States” (COS), and author of the “parental rights” amendment which delegates power over children to the federal & state governments.

    Total bull … [obscenity deleted by PH]… : The Parental Rights Amendments protects the liberty of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, and care of the
    parent’s child as a fundamental right. Farris is the founder of the HSLDA and Patrick Henry College.


    Comment by brocktownsend | February 28, 2014 | Reply

    • Brocktownsend:

      I have two questions of you: Here is the text of Farris’ PRA which I wrote about a while ago here:

      “SECTION 1: The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.

      SECTION 2: The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.

      SECTION 3: Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

      SECTION 4: This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.

      SECTION 5: No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”

      1) What do you understand Section 3 to mean? Tell me in your own words.

      2) Where does the Constitution presently delegate to the federal government power over children? Please cite Article, Section, and clause. Remember! Ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only – i.e., every power WE delegated to the federal government is actually listed – itemized – in the Constitution. Where is power over children now listed as one of the powers delegated to the federal government?

      Do you see?

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2014 | Reply

  11. […] Article V Convention: How “Individuals of Insidious Views” Are Stealing Our Constitution […]


    Pingback by History repeating? The Third Continental Congress in America | Mere Liberty | February 27, 2014 | Reply

  12. Those proposing the amendments as Collectivists have already counted the votes knowing that all the need to change the Constitution is 51%. After all isn’t that what Harry Reid relies on to run the Senate. The Constitution does not need amending it needs to stand and be enforced.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by rrstubbs | February 27, 2014 | Reply

  13. Since ‘congress’, the ‘president’, scotus, etc all exist in the ‘Unites States’, which is located (in its entirety) in the District of Columbia, and the ‘constitution’ the public sees today is the US Constitution, the look-alike piece of paper for the ‘United States’ (located in the District of Columbia), and NOT The Constitution For The United States of America, c.1791 AD (the Constitution for the several states of the Union), they are re-writing a constitution that doesn’t actually apply to the people of the several states, only ‘federal’ citizens (‘US citizens’) of the District of Columbia and the US territories.

    The people have been lied to and deceived into believing that the ‘US constitution’ applies to them, as well as all those BS ‘laws’ that congress and the alphabet agencies come up with, which only have force and effect in the District of Columbia ( a foreign nation to the several states, NOT a part of The United States of America, c. 1791) and the US territories (also known in codes and statutes as “this state”. They don’t apply ANYWHERE but the District of Columbia and US territories, including areas “within the boundaries of the several states” under the exclusive control of the federal government (such as military bases).

    The sooner Americans wake up to this whole ‘US citizen’ deception and bullsh*t, the sooner we can ‘take back’ control of our free republic, or, more correctly, re-assert control we were deceived out of by politicians of the foreign nation in the District of Columbia. It has taken them 200, well-calculated years to pull off this deception (obviously very effectively), byt it is time for Americans to wake up. We are but moments away from another NAZI Germany, this time here in what used to be the greatest nation on the planet and in man’s history.

    We, the people, the designated caretakers and guards of our future, have allowed the tyrants and bankers to once again take over the planet and destroy natural resources and freedom for their corporate greed and love of power and control. Time has come to shut them down, or once again endure several hundred years of turmoil to regain the freedom our forefathers secured for us, and we pissed away…AGAIN……history goes around one more time…but this time, we can’t claim ignorance, only laziness, apathy and fear….WAKE UP!


    Comment by Applessence | February 27, 2014 | Reply

    • Oh, applesause! Let’s start over from square one:

      We must distinguish between the limited & defined enumerated powers delegated to the federal government over the country At large; FROM the general legislative powers Congress has over the federal enclaves (Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause) & territories (Art. IV, Sec. 3, clause 2).

      Open your mind and read and learn this paper:

      THEN, let’s chat!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 27, 2014 | Reply

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: