Straight Talk About An Article V Convention
By Publius Huldah
This speech was presented to Campaign For Liberty – Memphis on March 24, 2014. It exposes some of the false claims made by those pushing for the so-called “convention of states”. 1
Below are hyperlinks to the exhibits referred to in the speech. Additional resources are also included.
The one page Chart which illustrates our Declaration, Constitution, and federal system is HERE.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report 2 cited in the speech was dated March 7, 2014. CRS’s revised Report, dated April 11, 2014, is HERE. The Report exposes as false the assurances that the States would be in control of a convention. The Report says:
“First, Article V delegates important and exclusive authority over the amendment process to Congress…” (page 4)
“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; (5) setting internal convention procedures, including formulae for allocation of votes among the states; . . .” (page 4) 3
“. . . [In previous bills filed in Congress] [a]pportionment of convention delegates among the states was generally set at the formula provided for the electoral college, with each state assigned a number equal to its combined Senate and House delegations. Some bills included the District of Columbia, assigning it three delegates, but others did not include the federal district. . .” (page 37; see also page 41)
“. . . A related question concerns vote allocation in an Article V Convention. Would delegates vote per capita, or would each state cast a single vote, during the convention’s deliberations, and on the final question of proposing amendments?. . .” [then follows a discussion of different views on this undecided issue] (page 41)
“Article V itself is silent on membership in an Article V Convention, so it is arguable that Congress, in summoning a convention to consider amendments, might choose to include the District of Columbia and U.S. territories as either full members at a convention, or possibly as observers. As noted previously, some versions of the Article V Convention procedures bills introduced in the late 20th century did provide for delegates representing the District of Columbia, although not for U.S. territories . . .” (page 42)
Page 40 of the Report shows there doesn’t seem to be any:
“. . . constitutional prohibition against [U.S.] Senators and Representatives serving as delegates to an Article V Convention. . . “
So! As the CRS Report states on page 27:
“In the final analysis, the question what sort of convention?” is not likely to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and a convention assembles.”
Do you see? But by then, it will be too late to stop it. HERE is former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger’s letter confirming this. 4
The text of the “parental rights” amendment is HERE. For two papers showing how Michael Farris’ proposed amendment delegates power over children to the federal and State governments, go HERE and, for the follow up paper, HERE.
To see how six of Mark Levin’s so-called “liberty amendments” do the opposite of what he claims, go HERE.
To see – on one page – proof of the original intents of the “interstate commerce”, “general welfare”, and “necessary and proper” clauses, go HERE.
The proponents of a convention portray the States as victims of federal tyranny. But the Truth is that the States voluntarily surrendered their retained powers, and the natural rights of The People, TO the federal government. And they did it for federal funds. Today, States get from 20% (Alaska) to 45.3% (Mississippi) of their State budgets from the federal government. State governments don’t want to rein in the feds! The people who run your State will do anything to keep their federal funds. HERE is the Pew Report.
Our Framers – those who actually signed the Constitution – NEVER said the purpose of amendments is to rein in the feds if they usurp powers. What they actually said is:
- amendments remedy defects in the Constitution (Hamilton at the federal convention 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” would be suggested by experience (Federalist No. 43 at 8.)
HERE are the Articles of Confederation. Note that Art. XIII required approval of amendments by every State.
HERE is the Resolution, made by the Continental Congress 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”.
HERE is James Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville. Copy it to word processing, make paragraph breaks, & highlight it. Madison NEVER supported the convention method of amending our Constitution.
HERE is Joe Wolverton’s article about the Socialists’ involvement in the push for a convention.
HERE is the Constitution for the Newstates of America. Article XII addresses ratification by a referendum called by the President. Read HERE about the proposed Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America. Read them and see what is being planned for you by people you think are on your side.
HERE is the screen shot of Jordan Sillars’ comment re re-writing the Constitution.
For Q’s & A’s on this issue, go HERE.
Endnotes:
1 There is no such thing as a “convention of states” to propose amendments. The term is a marketing gimmick used by proponents of an Article V convention to manipulate people into believing that the States would control an Article V convention – from start to finish.
Article V, US Constitution, provides two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution:
1. Congress proposes amendments and submits them to the States for ratification [the method we used for our existing 27 Amendments]; or
2. Congress calls a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments [for good reason, we have never used this method].
2 Even though we have never had an Article V convention; Congress has examined procedures for “calling” a convention so as to be ready if the need arises. The CRS Report proves that Congress has historically viewed its powers respecting “calling” a convention as exclusive and extensive. I thank Robert Brown for bringing the CRS Report to my attention.
3 The position Congress has historically taken in this regard is totally consistent with Article I, Sec. 8, last clause, which delegates to Congress power to make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out the power vested in Congress at Art. V to “call” the convention.
4 Folks! For the sake of your Posterity, you must understand this: After a convention is convened, the delegates can do whatever they want – including coming up with an entirely new Constitution with its own new method of ratification. Chief Justice Burger wrote in his June 22, 1988 letter to Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly:
“… there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose. . .”
The federal convention of 1787, which was called by the Continental Congress “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”, should serve as a warning: The delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress [and from their States]; ignored Art. XIII of the Articles of Confederation which required the States to obey Congress on matters covered by the Articles, and wrote an entirely NEW Constitution with a NEW method of ratification which required only 9 of the 13 States for ratification.
Credits: Many thanks to Devvy Kidd, Blue Tail Gadfly, and M. Craig Elachie, from whom I lifted the very best lines in the speech. PH
Posted October 11, 2014.
Share this:
15 Comments »
Leave a comment
PUBLIUS HULDAH
Publius-Huldah's Blog 
You have our support, and a voice of We the People. The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch. 3) is an Act of Congress that created and established the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America, and granted it the legal authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now commonly known as the U.S. Dollar) and Federal Reserve Bank Notes as legal tender. The Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” – Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)
“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”
-Abraham Lincoln
Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” -Woodrow Wilson
This Federal Reserve is deemed Unconstitutional
LikeLike
Oh yes, it is totally unconstitutional. The disgrace is that the American people elected the President and Representatives in the House who did this to us. And lest some think that ALL our problems will be solved by repealing the 17th Amendment, remember that the State legislatures selected the US Senators who did this to us.
LikeLike
[…] can read much more here at Publius Huldah’s […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Straight Talk About an Article V Convention [Video] | therightplanet.com | January 2, 2015 |
[…] have already shown – most recently HERE – that what these demagogues are saying is not true; and that the real purpose of a […]
LikeLike
[…] Publius-Huldah’s Blog […]
LikeLike
One of the major issues of the idea of a constitutional convention is that even if the states are in charge of a constitutional convention (historically inaccurate, as the delegates are selected by congress) is that the states themselves are outside of that document. By and large, the constitution is ignored by both the state and federal government. Why would either attempt to limit their own power? There’s an excellent illustration of this issue within Story’s commentaries on the Constitution and Laws of the United States (1833) in chapter 4, section 395.
“§ 395. But in the next place, (and it is that, which would furnish a case of most difficulty and danger, though it may fairly be presumed to be of rare occurrence,) if the legislature, executive, and judicial departments should all concur in a gross usurpation, there is still a peaceable remedy provided by the constitution. It is by the power of amendment, which may always be applied at the will of three fourths of the states. If, therefore, there should be a corrupt co-operation of three fourths of the states for permanent usurpation, (a case not to be supposed, or if supposed, it differs not at all in principle or redress from the case of a majority of a state or nation having the same intent,) the case is certainly irremediable under any known forms of the constitution. The states may now by a constitutional amendment, with few limitations, change the whole structure and powers of the government, and thus legalize any present excess of power. And the general right of a society in other cases to change the government atthe will of a majority of the whole people, in any manner, that may suit its pleasure, is undisputed, and seems indisputable. If there be any remedy at all for the minority in such cases, it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions. It is by a resort to the ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.”
The states are engaged in acts outside of their limits of power, how exactly would a constitutional convention ‘help’ this if it allows them to legitimize the acts? Seems like putting the wolves in charge of deciding who’s for dinner. By and large, the federal government has grown the way it has precisely because of official state collusion and deliberate acts to enlarge both the sphere of state, and federal authority, and a deliberate and willful effort to evade the limits of both the state, and federal government’s powers in all the branches, the executive, the judicial, and the legislative.
As Webster said, in the congress in 1830:
“Sir, I deny this power of state legislatures altogether. It cannot stand the test of examination. Gentlemen may say, that in an extreme case, a state government might protect the people from intolerable oppression. Sir, in such a case, the people might protect themselves, without the aid of the state governments. Such a case warrants revolution. It must make, when it comes, a law for itself. A nullifying act of a state legislature cannot alter the case, nor make resistance any more lawful.”
The people, as always, being the origin of that constitution, and the font from which the government draws its powers, may always withdraw their support from it, and oppose it if needed. It is the most grave of the powers retained to the people, the authority to alter, or abolish the government by force, the use of self-defense as the final power of sovereignty.
LikeLike
Sorry for the delay. I wanted to read from Story’s Commentaries and locate Daniel Webster’s speech. [Henceforth, do your readers a favor and provide the hyperlinks to your sources!]
You were quoting from Story’s Commentaries, BOOK III, Ch. 4, Sec. 395, which I located here: http://lonang.com/library/reference/story-commentaries-us-constitution/sto-304/
It is always necessary to read the entire Chapter before one can understand any one Section. Alas, I don’t have time to do that now. So just looking at Sec. 395 – out of context – Story seems to be saying that 3/4 of the States can “remedy” any usurpation of the federal government by adopting amendments which legalize the usurpation. This, of course, is precisely what Michael Farris, with his “parental rights” amendment; and Mark Levin, with his “liberty” amendments, are seeking to do – to legalize powers the feds have already usurped. [Did Justice Story have a crystal ball?].
Story then seems to say that the only remedy for individuals who do not go along with the now legalized usurpations is one outside the Constitution – the appeal to that ultimate natural right of self-defense. And it does appear, that if our false friends get their way, this will be the only resort left.
About selection of delegates to a convention: Art. V delegates to Congress the power to “call” the convention. Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause, delegates to Congress the power to make all laws necessary & proper to carrying out its power to “call” the convention. So Congress has the power to decide how delegates will be selected. Congress may select delegates themselves OR Congress may permit States to select them OR Congress may come up with some other method of selection.
The CRS Report quoted and linked to in the latest entry on my home page, confirms that Congress has the power over the organizing and setting up of the convention.
Yes! You are absolutely right about The States being the wolves and collaborators in federal usurpations. I marvel that so few are able to see this fact!
About Daniel Webster’s address to Congress in 1830: Webster was speaking against the peculiar theory of nullification put forth by S. Carolina [as a result of the Tariff Act of 1828] that a State had the right to nullify ANY act of Congress, and such nullification would be valid, unless 3/4 of the States – in a convention – said the nullification wasn’t valid.
It was this peculiar theory which Madison addressed in his Notes on Nullification (1833). I have a link to it in “James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers”. While the Tariff Act of 1828 was unfair, IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL b/c Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1, delegates to Congress the power to impose tariffs, and further requires that the tariff be uniform in all States. So S. Carolina tried to nullify a constitutional law! THAT is why Madison opposed S. Carolina’s peculiar doctrine. Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton always said an act must be unconstitutional before it may be nullified as a resort to that ultimate right of self-defense.
Thank you for a very interesting post!
LikeLike
I tend not to hyperlink, due to issues with spam filters and hyperlinks, but in the future, on your posts, I shall do so, given your permission. I’ve studied much of this for over a decade, though I don’t always agree with you, your opinions are well-reasoned and coherent.
I’ve had a great deal of time to sit and research. Many of my discoveries have been painful, and forced me to reevaluate deeply-held thought and belief. I am willing to cite the cases upon which I base my opinion, not as legal advice, but as historic precedent, and knowledge gleaned from the chaff. Some of my opinions may be very contentous, others may seem to fly in the face of what is currently taught by the ABA, but all of them I’ve endeavored to research in depth.
The statements I must make are both controversial and difficult for me.
We, as a people, have no right nor authority to authorize our representatives, their executive agents, or even our judiciary to engage in things which are unlawful for us individually. We cannot give them powers which we do not have. To assert that we could would be to say that the servant, established and created by the people, is above its master, that those agents doing things by authority may not only exceed the authority given, but engage in those things which are forbidden for any man to do.
We are endowed, by the mere fact of our creation with rights that may not be justly, or lawfully alienated. The possession, dominion, and control of those rights are a protected property interest, that only terminates with our death or is suspended during imprisonment. We have no more rights to intrude on them beyond those two states.
Locke wrote a lot in his second treatise on civil government, on the states of war, and slavery, on usurpation and tyranny. All of those states are related, and the powers retained by the people are the very powers of sovereignty.. the power to speak and work and exist and contract without the state’s approval or permission, the power to travel, the power to own and possess property, and the power to defend one’s self.
While we imbued the new government at the establishment of the Constitution with new, limited powers, and established that government with those same limits, we also dissolved the states as they then stood, and put them under the constitution as new legal entities.
They were given multiple prohibitions, in article 1, section 10, and article 4. The debate on what those prohibitions meant would fill reams of paper.
Article 1, sections 9 and 10, were seen as a guarantee of equal law, a permanent bastion of safety for the people at large, to preserve their rights. The Federalist 44 spoke of bills of attainder as being one of the only means to deprive the rights of people, and the federalist 57 spoke of some limitation on the government preventing them from making targeted laws. The attainder clauses, against both state, and federal action, seem the only means by which to prevent arbitrary legislation.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed44.htm
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed57.htm
As any schoolchild has learned, we may be punished by inclusion, or exclusion. Punishment is not limited to the physical, to life or other things. Trop v. Dulles spoke of the right to have rights as being at the core of citizenship, and it being cruel and unusual punishment to deprive it, quite similar to the language in Cummings v. Missouri, Ex parte garland, Aptheker v. Secretary of State, and United States v Brown.
Punishment is any deprivation of the things, by force of law, that are extended to others. From avocations and vocations (under ex parte garland and its sister case, Cummings v. Missouri, to any of the other rights of ordinary life, the deprivation thereof may be a punishment.
This is part of the reason why title 18, sections 241 and 242 are in existence. They came into being under the civil rights act of 1866, and were reestablished after the Supreme Court found no power to legislate such under the 13th, the 14th amendment was passed, and the law was reestablished under the civil rights act of 1871.
Trop https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/356/86/case.html
Cummings http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=71&invol=277
Garland http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=71&invol=333
Aptheker https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/500/case.html
Brown http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/437
The law was in direct response, targeted at the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, where the deprivation of those privileges and immunities of citizens was considered of such importance that Dred Scott had to remain a slave.
It can be found at Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html at 60 US 416-417.
“For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police
Page 60 U. S. 417
regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the n***o race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.”
This same argument echoes the case of Prudence Crandall, a woman whose ‘crime’ was teaching freeborn black girls to read. The specter of the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right to keep and bear arms, going to the ‘inferior races’ was used to force Prudence into leaving the state, having her home and school burned.
Those ‘special laws’ were unconstitutional bills of attainder if applied to a citizen.. when the citizenship argument failed, they argued that obviously the slaves were not human,therefore, they didn’t have to give them rights. They then argued (in Cruikshanks) that the rights preexisted the constitution, therefore were not protected by it.
The law on the subject, however, is quite clear. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom, in any state, territory, district, or possession, deprives or causes the deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunity guaranteed or protected under the constitution or laws of the United States shall be guilty of a felony.
The civil rights act may be found under title 18, section 241-245, title 28, section 1343, and title 42, section 1981-1985
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-13
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1343
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21/subchapter-I
The due process clause was in order to allow people to be imprisoned (de facto depriving them of rights) for the duration of their sentence.
These rights were seen as the difference between a free man and a slave. Is it any wonder that at this point, that those powers that be wish to deprive us once again of those things which are ours by birthright?
Attainder, as a legal concept, was very simply any law targeted at any class of persons, because of the fact that non-general law was the fastest route to tyranny. Being singled out as a class, therefore, for special legislation was punishment, and could be seen in no other light. It was a deprivation of the special protection of general law, the same protection talked of in the federalist 57 as binding congress, its friends, and the whole of society.
US v. Brown 381 U.S. 437
“We do not hold today that Congress cannot weed dangerous persons out of the labor movement, any more than the Court held in Lovett that subversives must be permitted to hold sensitive government positions. Rather, we make again the point made in Lovett: that Congress must accomplish such results by rules of general applicability. It cannot specify the people upon whom the sanction it prescribes is to be levied. Under our Constitution, Congress possesses full legislative authority, but the task of adjudication must be left to other tribunals. [p462] ”
it is, perhaps, one of the most damning indictments of our age that the Jim Crow laws lasted as long as they did… and that the Black codes seem to be returning, pushed by both sides under the guise of ‘protective legislation’, from registries of persons to licenses to exercise rights, ‘free speech zones’ and searches and seizures without warrant. The fact that we permit and tamely allow the assaults upon persons which, if we were to engage them in a private capacity, would be executable offenses, beggars the imagination.
But then, just as the state officers and organized militias of the reconstruction south knew… as long as those who might resist have no arms to do so, they have nothing to fear, and the brutality increases. So if they could keep their protectors in places of power, they could spread the same deprivations generally, and allow only their own trusted agents to keep, and bear the means of defense.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/08-1521/opinion.html
” Third, if the 39th Congress had outlawed only those laws that discriminate on the basis of race or previous condition of servitude, African Americans in the South would likely have remained vulnerable to attack by many of their worst abusers: the state militia and state peace officers. In the years immediately following the Civil War, a law banning the possession of guns by all private citizens would have been nondiscriminatory only in the formal sense. Any such law—like the Chicago and Oak Park ordinances challenged here—presumably would have permitted the possession of guns by those acting under the authority of the State and would thus have left firearms in the hands of the militia and local peace officers. And as the Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction revealed, see supra, at 24–25, those groups were widely involved in harassing blacks in the South.”
We really don’t need a new constitution. We need to follow the one we have. We’ve failed as a nation to do so due to our own greed and blindness.
We are no more permitted to engage our own religious beliefs or practices upon others than they are upon us, nor are we permitted by force of law to steal from them or they from us. We are not permitted to determine what they must believe or perceive or what they should do with those things for which they’ve worked, to choose what other people should eat, drink, or read. We are not permitted to vote for ourselves checks out of the public coffers, or for others. We have granted no license for others to do so on our behalf… as it is not within our powers. We cannot license theft, assault, abuse, or any other public wrong. Why would we think our police officers, justices, or legislators could do such things with immunity and impunity?
But that’s the world we live in.. where the police claim authority to steal from us, beat us, and rob us, and make it a felony to resist them even when they’re engaged in illegal acts, and make it impossible to use the established procedures of replevin to recover our stolen assets under 18 USC 981 subsection C.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/981
Replevin only applies to goods illegally seized by official acts.
LikeLike
It will be a while before I can respond to your points. But as to your first point: It is ONLY when you correct wrong ideas in your head that the lights come on more brightly in your mind, and the dark corners in your mind are lit up. And when that happens to me, I literally get goosebumps as I assimilate the correct understanding and as it travels through my mind, correcting all the various misunderstandings here and there in the connected topics AND lighting up the dark corners. THAT is a huge rush. Properly appreciated, this is a great joy!
LikeLike
Wow! What a tremendous amount of information. Thank you. This will take quiet some time for me to get through. You are awesome P.H. Tashia (Patty)
LikeLike
Thank you so much, Tashia!
LikeLike
There is nothing new under the sun, is there? The new, modern way to raise your kids is sit and have discussions with them about their behavior, sit and write them letters about how hurt you are and write some new rules about how they can only use the internet until 1:15 instead of 2 a.m., things like that. When in fact, had you all along both inculcated in them the tried-and -true values and enforced them strictly, you could be presently enjoying a normal, traditional family life.
The Progressives, on both sides of the aisle, not only see every new “problem”, real or imagined, as necessitating another law, another cabinet-level department, another Presidential Commission or another revenue stream. We now find that their inattention and/or ignorance, willful or otherwise, to the remedies and powers extant in our Constitution leads them to propose new remedies, new Amendments, and conventions to sit and chat about how to make people follow rules who don’t follow rules. Good grief!
For failure to obey oath of office, there is provided means for removal from said office – FOR ALL THREE BRANCHES. For bloated bureaucracy, including the 864-judge JUDICIARY BUREAUCRACY, what Congress has created, Congress can also taketh away. For trillion dollar debts, the private sector tactic of shedding excess baggage can be adopted by telling Special Interest trough feeders “Go to the State Legislature where you are chartered and ask THEM for funding. We are so OVER that.” While at the same time telling the very same legislatures that those revenue streams for things that are not mentioned in the Constitution, like Health, Education, Environmental’ Management’, ‘Land Management’, Water Management’ and all the other dime-store goodies that have nickel and dimed us to death, are now cut off. And as you so rightly always note, the States and the People under the very same Constitution, no matter the ruling of ANY court or the opinion of any agency head or the results of any vote in either or both Houses, retain the right to reject whatever “new thing under the sun” the Feds come up with.
LikeLike
Wow! Your comment is GREAT. Applause! Applause!
LikeLike
Chief Justice Warren Burger the abortion justice and the standards on which I will base my morality. Why do you not quote “Finally, the report noted that the founders did not provide unchecked power to the Article V Convention:
every amendment proposed would be subject to the same stringent conditions faced by
amendments proposed by Congress: “… the notion of a ‘runaway’ convention, succeeding in
amending the Constitution in a manner opposed by the American people, is not merely remote, it
is impossible.” out of that same Congressional Research Paper? I love how you continually pronounce your Constitutionality with total disregard for the document. Article V is part of the Constitution as are all VII articles. You and your right wing extremist groups are no different than the President, the Judiciary and the legislature with your picking and choosing of of what parts of the Constitution to follow. You should be honest with yourself and admit you are anti Constitutionalist and are dreaming of the day for Civil discourse just like the buffoon running this country.
LikeLike
Oh, Allen, why are you so rude and abusive? And look at how you recklessly sling accusations!
1. I have a question: Can you point to that provision in the CRS Report itself which says:
I know perfectly well what you have done. You have copied the COS spin on the CRS report – and the language you fault me for not including comes from the COS spin and NOT from the CRS Report.
2. Do you understand that at a convention, the delegates have the power to introduce a new constitution? This new constitution will have its own method of ratification. Mark Levin, Michael Farris, Rob Natelson, are not seeking an Article V convention so that amendments may be made. They want a convention so that a new Constitution can be proposed. THE PLAN is to get the new constitution in place by the year 2020.
If the American People understood that THIS is the real plan – they would rise up and oppose it. So that is why the supporters of a convention are LYING about their true purpose. Millions of Americans – like you – believe the lies.
READ THIS and tell me if George Soros has the money to buy a new Constitution for America. He has paid agents to push this on the American People, and an ignorant & angry populace who believe the lies they are told. At Judgment Day, YOU – Allen – will have much to answer for: You love those who are lying to you and you malign and hate those few who tell you the Truth.
READ this and tremble for your Country and for yourself due to the part you have played in supporting this evil and attacking the TRUE defenders of Liberty and Virtue.
http://keywiki.org/index.php/Constitution_2020
LikeLike