Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Delegates to an Article V Convention Can’t be Controlled by State Laws!

By Publius Huldah

Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) sets forth our long forgotten Founding Principles that:

♦  All men are created equal.

♦  Rights come from God.

♦  People create governments to secure God-given rights. The first three words of our Constitution throw off the European model where political power originates with the State; and establish the new Principle that WE THE PEOPLE are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22, last sentence).

♦  When a government seeks to take away our God given rights, we have the right to alter, abolish, or throw off that Form of government.

These are the Principles which justified our Revolution against a King.

These are also the Principles which permit us today to throw off our Form of government by discarding our existing Constitution and replacing it with another one. This is why the language at Article V of our Constitution, which authorizes Congress to call a convention “for proposing amendments”, does not restrict Delegates to merely “proposing amendments”: Delegates are invested with that inherent pre-existing sovereign right, recognized in our Declaration, to abolish our existing Form of government (our Constitution) and propose a new Constitution.

This has happened once before in our Country. I’ll show you.

The Federal Convention of 1787: Federal and State Instructions to Delegates

Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution), the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia:

for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

The Continental Congress authorized each of the then 13 States to appoint Delegates to the convention. Twelve of the States 1 appointed Delegates and  instructed them to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation.  2

But the Delegates ignored the federal and State limitations and wrote a new Constitution (the one we have now is our second Constitution).  Because of this inherent authority of Delegates, it is impossible to stop it from happening at a convention today (which will surely result in a third Constitution).

The Delegates to the 1787 convention also instituted an easier mode of ratification. Whereas Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required approval of the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States before an amendment could be ratified; Article VII of the new Constitution provided that only 9 States were required for ratification of the new Constitution.

 Why is an Article V Convention Dangerous?

So! Do you see? If we have a convention today, there is nothing to stop Delegates from proposing a third Constitution with its own new method of ratification.

New Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention. Here are three:

♦  Fifty years ago, the Ford Foundation produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. It is ratified by a referendum called by the President [Art 12, Sec. 1]. If we have a convention, and Delegates propose the Newstates Constitution, it doesn’t go to the States for ratification – it goes directly to the President to call a Referendum. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Read the Newstates Constitution and tremble for your country.

♦ The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.  The text of their proposed constitution is HERE.

♦ The Constitution 2020 movement is funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law professors and Marxist groups all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder. They want a Marxist Constitution and they want it in place by the year 2020. It further appears that Soros is funding much of the current push for an Article V convention.

Do you know about the North American Union (NAU)?  During 2005, George W. Bush met on his ranch with the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico and they sketched it out.  The three countries merge and a Parliament is set up over them.  HERE is the Task Force Report on the NAU by the Council of Foreign Relations – Heidi Cruz was on the Task Force which wrote this up.  The United States will need a new Constitution wherein we surrender our sovereignty to the North American Union.   People!  If there is an Art. V convention, the Delegates can impose such a new Constitution with whatever mode of ratification will guarantee approval; and before you know it, we will be a Member State of the NAU.

Warnings from the Wise

Brilliant men have warned against an Article V convention. It is immoral to dismiss their warnings:

♦  Alexander Hamilton writes 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); and that he “dreaded” the consequences of a new convention because he knows that there are powerful individuals in several States who are enemies to having any kind of general [federal] government.  This could result in our losing the Constitution we have (No. 85, last para).

♦  James Madison writes in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that an Article V Convention would give “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country.

In Federalist No. 49, Madison shows that the convention method is NOT GOOD to correct breaches of the federal constitution because the People aren’t philosophers – they follow what influential people tell them! And the very legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention so they could control the outcome.

♦  Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his Sep. 14, 1986 article in The Miami Herald, that at the convention of 1787, the delegates ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, wrote a new Constitution. He warns that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda [of the convention] would almost certainly be unenforceable.”

♦  Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger warns in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly that “there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention”; “After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda”; and “A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…” 

♦ Former US Supreme Court Justice Scalia said on April 17, 2014 at the beginning of this video:

“I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that?”

Can State Laws Control Delegates?

Convention supporters say we don’t have to worry about any of the above because States can make laws controlling their Delegates.

Really? Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (father of our Constitution), opponents of the convention method of proposing amendments, didn’t know that. Two US Supreme Court Justices didn’t know that. They said there is no effective way to control the Delegates.

But in case you are uncertain as to who is telling you the Truth – and who isn’t – I will show you how easily State laws which pretend to control Delegates can be circumvented. Let’s use House Bill 148, recently filed in the New Hampshire Legislature, to illustrate this:

Section 20-C:2 I. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“No delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention shall have the authority to allow consideration, consider, or approve an unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.” [italics mine]

Section 20-C:1 V. of the bill defines “unauthorized amendment” as:

“any amendment outside the scope permitted by the Article V petition passed by the general court of New Hampshire”.

What is wrong with this?

♦  If the States already know what amendments they want, they should tell their State congressional delegations to propose them in Congress. This is the method James Madison used and always advised.

♦  New Hampshire Delegates can’t restrict Delegates from other States.

♦  It doesn’t prohibit New Hampshire Delegates from proposing or approving a new Constitution.

♦  It ignores the inherent sovereign authority of Delegates to throw off both their State governments and the federal government by proposing a new constitution with whatever new mode of ratification they want. Remember! Under the proposed Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

♦ Delegates to an Article V convention are performing a federal function – they are not under the authority of the States.

♦  Article V of the US Constitution provides that Amendments will be proposed at the convention. Any state laws contrary to Article V must fall under the supremacy clause at Article VI, US Constitution.


Section 20-C:2 II. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any vote taken by a delegate from New Hampshire at the Article V convention in violation of paragraph I of this section shall be null and void. Any delegate making this vote shall be immediately disqualified from serving as a delegate to the Article V convention.”

What is wrong with this?

♦  What if the Delegates vote to keep their proceedings secret? At the federal convention on May 29, 1787, our Framers made rules restricting publications of their proceedings.

♦  What if the Delegates vote by secret ballot? As long as some vote “for” and others vote “against” every proposition, there is no way to tell who did what.

Section 20-C:2 III. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Every delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention called for by the Article V petition shall be required to take the following oath:” “I do solemnly swear or affirm that to the best of my abilities, I will, as a delegate to the Article V convention, uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state of New Hampshire. I will accept and will act according to the limits of the authority as a delegate granted to me by New Hampshire law, and I will not vote to consider or approve any unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. I understand and accept any penalties that may be imposed on me by New Hampshire law for violating this oath.” [boldface mine]

Does one need to comment on the efficacy of Oaths of Office in our degenerate times? Article II, §1, last clause, of our Constitution requires the President to take an Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”; and Article VI, last clause, requires everyone in the federal and State governments to take an oath to obey the Constitution. Who today honors his Oath of Office?

Section 20-C:2 IV. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any delegate who violates the oath contained in paragraph III of this section shall be subject to the maximum criminal penalty under RSA 641:2.”

Any criminal defense attorney worth her salt can figure out how to get around this one:

♦  As shown above, if the proceedings of the convention are kept secret, or Delegates vote by secret ballot, one would never know if any one Delegate violated his oath. Defense counsel would get any attempted criminal prosecution of any particular Delegate dismissed at a pretrial hearing.

♦  Congress can pass a law granting immunity from prosecution to the Delegates.

♦  The Delegates can insert a clause in the new constitution granting themselves immunity from prosecution.

♦  If the new constitution abolishes the States, as does the Newstates Constitution, there is no State left to prosecute Delegates.

♦  The local prosecutor is the one who decides whether he will prosecute any criminal offense under his jurisdiction. Politics are a deciding factor in deciding whether to prosecute. Remember Eric Holder refused to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a polling place?

Do you see? James Madison, Justice Arthur Goldberg, and Justice Warren Burger were right: It is impossible to restrict the Delegates.

Everything to Lose, Nothing to Gain

If there is a convention today, George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won’t be there to protect you. Who will the Delegates be? You don’t know. Do you trust them?

Our Framers never said that when the federal [and State] government violate the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution they violate.

They never said the remedy is to file a lawsuit and let federal judges decide. They expected us to act as they did – with “manly firmness” 3 – and resist unconstitutional acts of the federal and state governments.

Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – it needs to be read and enforced by our votes; and failing that, by manly opposition – resistance – nullification.


1 Rhode Island boycotted the Convention.

Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required approval of amendments by the Continental Congress and by every State.

HERE [from Farrand’s Records, vol. 3, Appendix B, p. 559-586] are the Credentials of the Delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787 and Instructions from their States.  These Instructions encompassed:

♠ “alterations to the Federal Constitution which, when agreed to by Congress and the several States, would become effective“:  Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Georgia, S. Carolina, Maryland, & New Hampshire;

♠ “for the purpose of revising the Federal Constitution”: Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Delaware, and Georgia; 

♠ “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”: New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut;

♠ “provisions to make the Constitution of the federal Government adequate”: New Jersey.

3 The 7th paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.” [boldface mine] PH

Published Feb 1, 2015
Revised July 9 &10, 2015; Oct 25, 2015; Jan 8, 2017

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

February 1, 2015 - Posted by | Amendments to the Constitution, Article V, Article V Convention, Convention of States project, Delegates to a convention can't be controlled, Faithful Delegate Laws, New Hampshire Faithful Delegate Law, North American Union | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


  1. […] We have never had a convention under Article V. Such conventions are extremely dangerous. THIS is one of many articles which illustrate the danger, sets forth warnings from two of our Framers […]


    Pingback by Texas Governor’s Plan To Override Obama’s Tyranny – Is a Con-Con AKA (Article V Convention) really a good idea at this time in history? | I Took the Red Pill | January 8, 2016 | Reply

  2. […] We have never had a convention under Article V. Such conventions are extremely dangerous. THIS is one of many articles which illustrate the danger, sets forth warnings from two of our Framers […]


    Pingback by Open Letter to State Legislators Everywhere: The Other Side of the Article V Convention Issue « Publius-Huldah's Blog | November 25, 2015 | Reply

  3. It is instructive to recall Madison’s rationale for creating our Constitution when the delegates were not instructed to do so, and to see how that might be used today to write a new constitution even if instructed not to. He explains the rationale in Federalist #40. I apologize if this has already been mentioned.

    At Annapolis in 1786 representatives from the states charged the delegates to the convention to create a “national and adequate government” by “alterations and provisions in the articles of confederation”. I have greatly shortened the actual charge to the delegates but I have used Madison’s summary.

    The delegates according to Madison concluded both objectives could not simultaneously be accomplished so they had to choose which was the more important. Of course they chose creating a national and adequate government and defined it by writing a new Constitution completely ignoring the other aspect of the charge.

    It seems to me to be perfectly obvious that this same tactic could be used today. Regardless of the instructions given to the delegates to an Article V convention the delegates would be free to do what Madison did, declare the instructions were contradictory and then do what they wanted to do without constraints. So one must agree with the title to this Article by Publius Huldah.


    Comment by Don Mellon | February 6, 2015 | Reply

    • Right! it is that inherent sovereign Right of a people to throw off their form of government.

      Our First Constitution was The Articles of Confederation. That Congress called a convention to propose amendments to the Article of Confederation; but the delegates wrote a new Constitution – with a new & easier mode of ratification: only 9 States to approve the new Constitution, but all 13 States to approve amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

      So that is how we got our Second Constitution – the Constitution of 1787 we have now. If our present Congress calls a convention to propose amendments to our present Constitution, we can all be certain that the same thing will happen: We will get a new Constitution with a new & easier mode of ratification. Our existing Constitution requires 3/4 of the States to ratify Amendments; but a third Constitution can have whatever mode of ratification the drafters want.

      The proposed Newstates Constitution is ratified by a Referendum called by the President!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2015 | Reply

  4. Article V provides for an AMENDING convention, not a constitutional convention. Applications limit the scope of the convention. Congress acknowledges this because it has refused to aggregate applications for different purposes or amendment specific conventions. States can define the qualifications and duties of delegates, who represent the sovereign states. The delegates are NOT sovereigns but there as agents of the states. In 1787, the States convened a convention to revise the Articles of Confederation to make it suitable for the exigencies of the new union. The new constitution was submitted to the continental congress, which endorsed it unanimously (RI was absent). Although the ratification was changed from all states to 9 states, NO STATE was bound unless it ratified it. Right now we are witnessing a “runaway” federal government. Some here say we just need to follow the constitution, not amend it. How illogical is it to advocate IGNORING Article V of the Constitution? You are advocating precisely what you say you oppose. You have faith in states to nullify unconstitutional laws but you turn around and claim states can’t be trusted with a convention of states? Well, do you trust legislators or not? The fact is that electing “better” politicians alone will not reverse bad Supreme Court decisions such as Kelo v. City of New London. Only an amendment which restores the Framers’ original meaning of “public use” can correct it. Instead of making personal attacks against fellow conservatives, I recommend joining us. There is a growing political consensus that the federal government is out of control. If you believe in the Constitution, then follow it. Article V is a specific “check” on the power of the federal government. It is a necessary one. If we don’t use it, federal power will continue to grow regardless of the majority power in control.


    Comment by martinaustintx | February 5, 2015 | Reply

    • “Article V provides for an AMENDING convention, not a constitutional convention. … to make it suitable for the exigencies of the new union. The new constitution was submitted…”

      And this is precisely what you will get this go round. Take your pick from the various “new constitutions” available to you. Your simple-mindedness is astounding.

      I so tire of listening to the talking heads preaching to the choir with lofty ideals. If an elected official does not “faithfully execute” his office then try him. Of course this will require an educated electorate with a backbone. Stick around for the education my friend.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by wisdomdepot | February 5, 2015 | Reply

  5. More truer words were never spoken… Thanks, L.E.


    Comment by Jane Helbert | February 2, 2015 | Reply

  6. So, because the republicans have gained a few seats in the last election, I’m supposed to be filled with confidence that an Article V Convention is the ticket to put our country back on track.

    Let’s think about that.

    As we are now into the 8th year of facing possibly the most egregious breach of our Constitution in history with the treasonous placement of an anti-American, anti-Constitutional foreigner/person universally known to be ineligible in our White House, I can only wonder where this magic majority of Constitutional Conservatives who are going to “save our Republic via an article V Convention” is to be found; especially considering that not a single one of our justices, governors, representatives or senators, much less any of the prominent proponents of an Article V Convention has spoken up, or even whispered, about this blatant attack on the integrity of our Constitution. I can’t even find an instance where any of them has even given the matter any serious thought.

    Aren’t they all sworn to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? Shouldn’t that be motivation enough to at least bring the subject up for open public debate and disclosure? Our founders would most certainly have drawn pistols by now, for Pete’s sake. They didn’t pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor and then place their necks in King Georges noose (should they fail) simply to give this country over to a foreigner, much less to one who hates us and who has worked all his life to destroy us.

    Anyway, in a simple counting of the numbers to date, I don’t see how ZERO is going to make a majority who will protect the interests of We the People.

    Thus, I would consider the organization of an Article V Convention as an open act of war/insurrection against We the People.

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by Robert Jones | February 2, 2015 | Reply

    • Wise words – the leaders of this push for a convention are our deadly enemies. They are at War with us and our Constitution.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2015 | Reply

    • Trust in elected officials in excess of 80% by an informed electorate knowledgeable enough to cite foundational rationale for such a convention would be pretty good criteria for starting the fire. In other words, when He’ll freezes over…

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by wisdomdepot | February 2, 2015 | Reply

      • Agreed. Only a fool would enter a second contract with man who carelessly and maliciously violated the first. And I am at a loss for words to further describe the fool who would let that same transgressor write the new contract.


        Comment by Robert Jones | February 2, 2015 | Reply

        • Oh, but you don’t understand! Only “nice”, “good”, “patriotic”, “intelligent” Republicans who are devoted to restoring our Constitution and strictly limiting the power of the federal government will be at the convention! David Farrar told us so!

          Now, it is true, that we NEVER elect such people to either the federal or State governments – but don’t you worry b/c whoever does select the delegates to the convention will select ONLY FINE people!

          James Madison warned in his Nov. 2 1788 letter to Turberville that “violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” would strive to be delegates to an Article V convention and would have a “dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundation of the fabric” of our Country. But we have it from David Farrar on high that James Madison was a fearmonger.

          And we know Madison really didn’t know much about all this – certainly not as much as David Farrar.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2015 | Reply

          • The irony of it all is that the people we would need to find to justify such a convention are to be found only among those wise and knowledgeable enough to know that we don’t need one.

            Just because a Stradivarius or Amati violin can be played badly, doesn’t mean it should be smashed. We just need to replace the “artists” who are abusing our Constitution with those who respect it and know how to play it. It remains the greatest document of its kind in existence.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by Robert Jones | February 2, 2015

          • So, are you a violinist? My favorite musical instrument! I don’t play it. Sigh.
            Heifetz playing Zigeunerweisen amazing……….


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2015

          • Yes, I play the violin a little. Heifetz has long been my favorite, too.


            Comment by Robert Jones | February 3, 2015

          • WOW, I love it, Robert.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 3, 2015

  7. Oh, my dear love!! How grateful I am to you, for you!! I love you and thank you with all my heart. Are you acquainted with the President of Hillsdale College? The work going on there to bring the Constitution to the attention of – well, all the people they can? And the work near Congress to teach, explain it?

    With immense gratitude and so much love, Carol


    Comment by Carol Boggs | February 2, 2015 | Reply

    • Hello dear Carol,
      My internet access is slow – so I haven’t watched the Hillsdale series on the Constitution.

      When assessing speakers/writers, ask yourself: Do they cite original sources as Authority? AND do the original sources say what the speaker/writer claims they say? So you have to look up the sources they cite and determine whether the source actually says what the speaker/writer claimed it says. E.g., My paper on Rob Natelson’s perversions of the necessary & proper clause: He MISREPRESENTED what those two supreme Court cases say. He gets away with it b/c his followers don’t look up his sources – and when someone like me points out to a true believer (like David Farrar) that they have been lied to – the true believer doesn’t care – they don’t care if they are lied to.

      Now I trust all see the connection between morality and good government: The People MUST be honest if they are to have good government.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2015 | Reply

  8. Trust no one. Do your own research. I would as soon hands the keys over to these Sorosians as give them to the “observant, ever faithful, rubber stamped, RINO’s I am surrounded by. We as a country have a long road to travel before anyone in government can be “trusted”. Right now a thirst for true knowledge, a sense of “manly ownership” of the dire condition, a steadfast vigilant call and providence are our weapons. It is beyond imbecilic to trust such a grave issue to the morally bankrupt vermin seated in power. PH, I read and digest every word written here. Not to take it at face value but to extend my research. You, my dear, are a blessing. MCE: URL?


    Comment by wisdomdepot | February 1, 2015 | Reply

    • Thank you, Wisdom. What do we do when convention supporters don’t seem to care that their handlers lie to them?
      I’ll point out to MCE your request.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2015 | Reply

      Here is MCE’s blog


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2015 | Reply

    • Hi Wisdom…
      Sorry i missed it.
      NOTE: its in the VERY early stages.
      Patience required. 🙂
      God bless


      Comment by M. Craig Elachie | February 1, 2015 | Reply

  9. Sorry Pub,

    Methinks you are, indeed, “fear mongering”. While it is always prudent to take your advice on the possible dangers of holding an Article V convention, our ultimate faith must be in We the People themselves and in simple arithmetic:

    31 Republican-controlled legislatures
    11 Democratic-controlled legislatures
    08 split legislatures

    50 Total


    Comment by davidfarrar | February 1, 2015 | Reply

    • So the Republicans are going to save us? Look at the republicans in congress! Oh! those are the “bad” republicans. There will be only “good” republicans at the convention, right? So we elect bad republicans to Congress – but somehow only the good republicans will be at the convention….

      And meanwhile, you ignore the fact that the people you trust so blindly mislead you about the content of the Feb. 21, 1787 Resolution of the Continental Congress?

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2015 | Reply

      • “And meanwhile, you ignore the fact that the people you trust so blindly mislead you about the content of the Feb. 21, 1787 Resolution of the Continental Congress?”


        But I haven’t ignore that fact. I have accepted it. Even in the worse case scenario as you make out the Feb. 21, 1787 Resolution of the Continental Congress it turned out to be…look at the results. I have absolutely no doubt the delegates to an Article V convention will be just as serious, just as diligent, just as conservative and well-meaning as the delegates were in 1787. With overwhelming conservative Republican delegates in attendance at such a constitutional convention, and with three/fourths of the united states needing to ratify any proposed amendments, things simply cannot so far out of control we are too frighten to use the only weapon the founders and framers of the US Const., in their wisdom, placed directly in the hands of We the People to be used by We the People, in and for We the People.


        Comment by davidfarrar | February 1, 2015 | Reply

        • David, the things you are repeating are FALSE. I have shown them to be false.

          You are a true believer and you will take this country to hell b/c YOU think YOU know more than James Madison, Justice Arthur Goldberg, and Justice Warren Burger, and Alexander Hamilton.

          Your blind faith in delegates when you have NO IDEA who they will be – and don’t even understand how they will be selected – or who will select them – is disgusting. I always wondered how it was that Hitler was able to take over Germany. Now I know. The stupidity of the German People. Their blind faith in Herr Hitler – all evidence to the contrary.

          You are so filled with ignorant conceit that it doesn’t occur to you that those who have been pushing for a convention for over 50 years and who have proposed the Newstates Constitution; the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America; and the Marxist Constitution George Soros, Marxist law professors all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder want in place by the year 2020, understand something YOU have refused to acknowledge. ALL THEY NEED TO IMPOSE ONE OF THESE CONSTITUTIONS IS A CONVENTION. Since the NEW CONSTITUTION WILL HAVE ITS OWN METHOD OF RATIFICATION, it need not go to the States for ratification. I have shown this over & over, but all you seem to be willing to read are the lies your handlers tell you.

          You are carrying the water for those who mean to impose a Marxist Constitution on us. And you have REFUSED the Truth. Shame on you! You are now outside the pale of decent citizens. You are one of the enemy.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2015 | Reply

          • Who got us in this mess: We The People did because of our ignorance, stupidity, and conceit.

            And now, We The People are going to fix it?

            The American People are stupid, they know nothing, they can’t think, and they are so morally degenerate that they don’t care that the people they follow lie to them. Yes – these are just the ones to “fix” our constitution.

            The greatest stupidity is to believe that you can rein in a gov’t which ignores the Constitution by amending the Constitution. When a People are so STUPID that they fall for that crap – as you have – then its over. We are done. We are toast. We are too stupid to survive.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2015

          • Pub,

            I guess that’s where you and I disagree. I have faith in the wisdom of the crowd, when correctly informed, and you do not. Yes, I could be wrong, but in a democracy, this provides an opportunity to learn, to be informed and to eventually, adjust. So even if I am mistaken, it seems democracy wins. But nullification should be the last resort, after an Article V convention is held and your worst fears are realized, nullification will be there, it seems to me

            As to the motion issue; I stand corrected.a


            Comment by davidfarrar | February 2, 2015

          • And you know all about it don’t you? And you know more than James Madison, etc.

            And the issue about the motion is that the people you trust MISREPRESENTED what the Continental Congress said in its Resolution of Feb. 21, 1787. That should make you question everything they tell you.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2015

          • Pub,

            On what page did you say the adopted resolution can be found on the link you provided?


            Comment by davidfarrar | February 2, 2015


            The Resolution passed by the Continental Congress on Feb. 21, 1787 is on page 74. At the above link. THAT is THE OFFICIAL RESOLUTION.

            In my paper, I posted a link to the first page where this matter came up in Congress – page 71 – my silly idea being that people would read all 4 pages….. sigh.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2015

  10. Do you think we can have a conference call, and discuss. I might want to setup you coming to Oklahoma and discussing this though the debate.



    Comment by Bob Dani | February 1, 2015 | Reply

    • Bob, the best way to communicate with me is by email: And tell me where in Oklahoma – that is important as I do not fly…


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2015 | Reply

  11. Thank you for sending this. I’ve posted on my Timeline.



    Comment by marieswood1 | February 1, 2015 | Reply

    • Thank you, Marie! Show Face Book they can’t shut up Truth!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2015 | Reply

  12. Hi Pup

    I got the quote from your link, although I had to click on the “NEXT” page.


    Comment by davidfarrar | February 1, 2015 | Reply

    • The Resolution of the Continental Congress (as opposed to the mere motion presented to the Congress by Mr. Benson) is on page 74 of The Journals of Congress

      You must always go the original source documents b/c the people you trust so much don’t tell the Truth.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2015 | Reply

      • You do know your link opened up on page 71; don’t you? I simply cut my hunt off for the adopted motion when I saw those similar words. Sorry.


        Comment by davidfarrar | February 2, 2015 | Reply

    • To David Farrar,
      One needs only read your remarks to know that you are either a liar or completely ignorant, Sir. As evidence, consider that you twice refer to America as a “democracy” which is false. We are, or were at least intended to be a Constitutional Republic, a fact you would know and admit if you were honest.


      Comment by Mike Travis | March 10, 2017 | Reply

      • It is the saddest thing about David. He used to be a sharp guy! But then he drank the COS kool-aide and became immune to FACTS and Logic. I can’t fathom what goes on in the heads of smart people like David who shut their minds to the Truth.


        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2017 | Reply

  13. I have never the understood the idea that our rights come from God. Could someone explain this, because to me it just seems like dogma. Does it even say this anywhere in the Bible? I know it says so in the Declaration of Independence, but does that mean it’s true?


    Comment by LAPhil | February 1, 2015 | Reply

    • Excellent question, LAPhil.

      Look at the 2nd para of our Declaration of Independence. It says our Rights come from the Creator God and that they are unalienable.

      Think about the significance of that statement: It recognizes that our Rights have a transcendent origin which pre-exist and pre-date all forms of government. Since Rights have this transcendent origin, they can not be taken away from us by man or by governments created by man or by documents written by man.

      In fact, our Declaration of Independence goes on to say that the PURPOSE of government is to secure the rights that God gave us. If you will read this short paper, you will see how the few enumerated powers we delegated to the federal government “secure” in certain ways some of the Rights given to us by God.

      THAT is the glorious Constitution the voluntarists, “christian” fascists, Marxists, and false friends want to get rid of.

      To non-theists: Ayn Rand believed that Rights are woven into the fabric of Reality and that it is immoral to take people’s “natural” rights away from them. I’m simplifying her position, but that is the gist.

      The point is that whether one is a theist (like me) or a non-theist (Ayn Rand), there are solid doctrines that Rights come first, governments second – and governments are evaluated according to how well they secure (protect) these pre-existing unalienable rights.

      Yes, it really does say this in the Bible. Our Constitution is based on God’s Model for civil government as set forth in the Bible:

      The Bible is a practical Document for everyday living.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2015 | Reply

  14. I agree with everything you say about an Article V convention and I hope it never happens. But since it is possible it is interesting to consider what might be the consequences.

    When our current Constitution was offered to the states a no vote on ratification just meant the state would continue as an independent nation and not be part of the union formed by those ratifying. If the same option was offered as an outcome to a new constitution many states I believe would opt out, my state of Texas included. That might not be a bad outcome.

    If opt out was not an option, civil war would be. What major questions would have to be answered. Would the military support a George Soros constitution? How would the red state legislators react? Would the people meekly give in to communist rule? It would be exciting.


    Comment by Don Mellon | February 1, 2015 | Reply

    • Astute distinction, Don. Any of the original 13 States who did NOT ratify our second Constitution of 1787 had the option of remaining an independent State.

      We don’t have that option under the 3 proposed Constitutions the David Farrar’s of this Country refuse to admit exist……. Oh! That’s right! I am “fear mongering” by even mentioning these 3 proposed Constitutions! Right – those 3 Constitutions don’t exist. James Madison was a “fear monger”. So were Justices Goldberg and Burger. THEY didn’t know what they were talking about.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2015 | Reply

  15. Good job PH

    …As always.

    It seems there are a couple of big questions before us.

    First, in this day of hallowed lawlessness, can any law, oath, Constitution, amendment, etc ever be sufficiently air-tight to prevent those who are determined to slither around it from not only doing so, but doing so with impunity and the respect of those who are responsible for holding them accountable for their lawlessness, ultimately institutionalizing it?

    There is danger when the Rogues on both sides of the equation recognize each other via deep philosophical agreement, and provide mutual support against a common enemy, us, toward a common goal, unaccountability!

    A second question has to do with subterfuge–those who believe we must be deceived for our own good–a very low opinion of others..

    Can we rationally expect the safeguards expected from law and order to be found in “Liberty Amendments” when so many of those who promote them readily admit they have bigger goals in mind…a remaking of our nation?

    It does not take a lot of research to find that “Liberty” has been redefined to mean “every man does what is right in his own eyes” which is no the same “True liberty” our Founders fought for, but the licentiousness and anarchy they forged the “chains of the Constitution” to protect us against. We are dealing with those who seek to throw off those very chains, regardless of the consequences. Not for little did our Founders say:

    ““A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an
    eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty !!” –Fisher Ames.

    The general public is grossly aware of what lurks behind the smiling face of those promoting so-called “Liberty” in our day. It is hardly, as you noted, the face of Washington, Madison, and those men of honor, but rather…well, here are a couple of quotes from supporters, so, let the reader decide:

    “In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that [his] goal is voluntarism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.”

    “I agree that Ron Paul’s role is as an educator. He gets people interested in libertarianism and then turns people onto the Mises Institute. If you took a poll here on this message board, I’d bet that 50+% of the people first heard of this place through Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign. Changing somebody into a voluntaryist is a gradual thing and it’s something that’s probably easier to glide into rather than jump into. So I think you’re right. But there comes a point where you reach critical mass and Ron Paul has appealed to all of the people who are serious thinkers and at that point he can drop the anarchist bomb on his fans.”

    See the video here: (it moves around a lot).

    These are the people pushing the Convention. We may rest assured that it is NOT for our benefit.

    God bless


    Comment by M. Craig Elachie | February 1, 2015 | Reply

    • They are some of the people pushing for a convention.

      George Soros and his gang of Marxist law professors are another group.

      And then, there are those on the phony “right” such as Mark Levin and the “christian” fascists: All you have to do in this Country is to chant some Bible verses and the stupid will follow you right off the cliff.

      Thank you for posting here now that I have been shut off Face Book – I’m sure the COS operatives and true believers are filled with glee that TRUTH has been silenced.

      I’m going now to sign up for your website. Oh! you may post a link to your website here!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2015 | Reply

      • Thanks….its in the VERY early stages.
        Patience required. 🙂
        God bless


        Comment by M. Craig Elachie | February 1, 2015 | Reply

  16. THANKS, For Your clarification.


    Comment by Noah Tickle | February 1, 2015 | Reply

  17. Wednesday, February 21, 1787

    “That it be recommended to the States composing the Union that a convention of representatives from the said states respectively be held at on for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the United States of America and reporting to the United States in Congress assembled and to the States respectively such alterations and amendments of the said Articles of Confederation as the representatives met in such convention shall judge proper and necessary to render them adequate to the preservation and support of the Union.”

    Pup, you will have to admit, on the whole, these are pretty general instructions. I think with the general Republican swing of state legislatures; now is the time to use the important Article V weapon the founders and framers of the US. Const., gave to We the People, which, in itself, lays beyond their instructions, some would say.



    Comment by davidfarrar | February 1, 2015 | Reply

    • WHERE did you get that quote from? Give me the link to the website from which you copied it! It came from someone who is deliberately or ignorantly misrepresenting the Facts.

      Unlike you, I know the original source of the quote you are so proud of: It was set forth in a motion written by one Mr. Egbert Benson and presented to the Continental Congress on February 21, 1787. See this page:

      It is NOT the Resolution passed by the Continental Congress! The Resolution they actually passed is here:

      “Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions…” [boldface mine]

      The people you admire and trust so much lie to you. You repeat their lies while you patronize the person who tells you the truth.

      What could possibly go wrong in a Country with lots of people like that in it? Oh yes, they are the ones who allow tyranny to be imposed.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2015 | Reply

  18. As we all know, there is absolutely nothing wrong with our Constitution. The problem we face is in whom we elect to run our government. The electorate continues to elect and re-elect people that only mouth their oath of office with no intention of honoring that oath. Dishonorable men and women running our government are is excuse for calling for calling an Article V convention, when it would be best for the country to just throw them out of office. We keep hearing about term limits, well we already have term limits the House of Representatives two years, the President four years, and the Senate six years. As for a balanced budget, revert to the Constitution it lays out what the government is allowed to do and not what they want to do. “We the People” under this corrupt government have become “We Screw the People” and a vast majority of the electorate seem to like it that way.


    Comment by L.E. Liesner | February 1, 2015 | Reply

    • YES! YES! YES!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2015 | 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: