Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Open Letter to State Legislators Everywhere: The Other Side of the Article V Convention Issue

By Publius Huldah

If there is an Article V convention, we will lose the Constitution we have, and another Constitution will be imposed.

You are not getting both sides of this issue. Throughout the Country, those of us who are warning of the dangers of an Article V convention are marginalized, ridiculed, smeared, shut out of meetings, and barred from speaking in public forums. THIS short essay from the Principled Policy Blog describes what we face every day.

THIS article is an account by Donny Harwood, a Citizen of Tennessee, describing how he was shut out of the public meeting which the Convention of States people held on October 19, 2015 at the Millennium Maxwell House Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee. According to The Leaf-Chronicle, a number of Tennessee Legislators were at the meeting. A prominent Tennessee radio talk show host was also present.

And everyone at the meeting was prevented from hearing the other side of this issue.

The reason convention proponents forbid dissenting voices is that we prove, by means of Facts and original source documents, that the claims and promises of the convention proponents are false. HERE are some of the original source documents Legislators would hear about if they were presented with the other side of this issue.

We are in the final stage of a takeover. Statists of every variety [this includes the phony “conservatives”] want a new Constitution to legalize our transformation from the constitutional Republic created by our existing Constitution to a dictatorship.

To get a new Constitution, they need a convention. So they are telling conservatives that our Constitution is causing our problems and we need to amend the Constitution. And they say we can only make the amendments they say we need at a convention.

Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amending our Constitution. Congress:

1. Proposes amendments, or

2. Calls a convention to propose amendments if 34 States apply for it.

The first method was used for our existing 27 amendments: Congress proposed them and sent them to the States for ratification or rejection.

Under the second method, Congress calls a convention. 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 and two former US Supreme Court Justices, and explains why Delegates to a convention can NOT be controlled by State laws.

National conventions are dangerous because the Delegates have the plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification. The video by Chuck Michaelis at the bottom of THIS page explains these plenipotentiary powers. Such Delegates are the Sovereign Representatives of The People and have the power to impose a new Constitution. This has already happened in our history:

♦ At the Federal Convention of 1787, this plenipotentiary power was exercised to replace our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, with the Constitution we now have. On February 21, 1787, The Continental Congress called a convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. But instead of proposing amendments to our first Constitution, the Delegates wrote a new Constitution – the one we now have.

♦ Furthermore, the new Constitution had a new and easier mode of ratification: Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (p 8-9) provided that Amendments to the Articles had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States. But the new Constitution, drafted at the “amendments” convention of 1787, provided at Art. VII thereof that it would be ratified upon approval by only nine of the then existing 13 States.

So! Not only do Delegates to a national convention have this plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution; the precedent to do so has already been established.

Statists have been pushing for a convention for 50 years – ever since the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. They need a convention to get it imposed.

Several other Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention.

If there is a convention, the only issues will be (1) whose Constitution will be imposed by the Delegates; and (2) what new mode of ratification will be set forth in the new Constitution.

♦ The Constitution for the Newstates of America imposes a totalitarian dictatorship. Article XII, § 1 thereof provides for ratification by a Referendum called by the President. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

♦ The Revolutionary Communist Party USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.

♦ George Soros, Marxist law professors all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder want a Marxist Constitution in place by the year 2020.

♦ The “Convention of States” project wants a “re-written” Constitution which legalizes powers the federal government has already usurped, and delegates new powers to the federal government such as total power over children. Yet they are telling conservatives that they want a convention so they can get amendments “to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”!

♦ The political establishment [both major parties] wants to transform the United States from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union:  Canada, the United States, and Mexico are to merge and surrender their sovereignty to a Parliament which is to be set up over the three countries.  The United States will need a new Constitution to bring about this transformation.  This is being imposed on us by stealth.  Read the Task Force Report of the Council on Foreign Relations HERE. And to see how the European Union is working out for the formerly sovereign nations of Europe, watch this 7.5 minute video by Pat Condell.

In the past, conservatives defeated the periodic pushes for a convention. So the statists changed tactics: Now, they are marketing it to appeal to conservatives: they are telling conservatives that a convention is the only way to rein in the federal government. These statists, some wearing conservatives’ clothing, are using the classic techniques of statists: They are not telling the truth; they are smearing their opponents; and they have divided conservatives. Conservatives who were deceived by the marketing have been induced to attack and exclude conservatives who are warning of the dangers of a convention. And they won’t let us address their groups.

Our existing Constitution really was a 5,000 year miracle. We delegated only a handful of enumerated powers to the federal government – you can see what we delegated HERE. Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – we need to restore the Constitution we already have. We begin the Restoration by reading and learning our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. And enforcing it! See, in this regard, the Tenth Amendment Center’s 2015 State of the Nullification Movement Report.

For the Love of God and Country, heed this warning.

Nov. 25, 2015; revised Dec. 23, 2015.

 

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

November 25, 2015 - Posted by | Article V Convention, Convention of States project, Delegates to a convention can't be controlled, Federal Convention of 1787 | , , , , , , , ,

51 Comments »

  1. […] Her former partner, Mark Meckler, is also pushing a Constitutional Convention under the guise of a Convention of States. I have continually asked these people one question, and have never received an answer. […]

    Like

    Pingback by LEADER OF TEA PARTY PATRIOTS ATTACKS TRUMP AT CPAC | Exposing Modern Mugwumps | April 2, 2016 | Reply

  2. […] our Constitution, but the candidate she supports, Ted Cruz, wishes to open the Constitution via a Convention of States and destroy what the founders gave us.  Her former partner, Mark Meckler, is also pushing a […]

    Like

    Pingback by Leader of Tea Party Patriots Attacks Trump at CPAC - Capitol Hill Outsider - CHO | March 9, 2016 | Reply

  3. BALONEY–this is the ONLY OPTION our Founding Fathers gave to the STATES and the PEOPLE to overturn government tyranny at the ballot box!!! We can continue to vote for representatives–new or old they are OBLIGATED to the CLIQUE called “national party” and without overturning party leaders on a grand scale–a Convention of STATES–is the ONLY OPTION LEFT!! It would be a Convention of delegates from at least 38 STATES needed to pass ANY Amendment–it will NOT be altering the Constitution EXCEPT BY PRE-SPECIFIED PROPOSALS, PERIOD!!! There will be NO abrupt wide sweeping Amendment process—to call this Convention MUST REQUIRE the PURPOSE established FIRST!! Those of you who don’t understand this process is FEAR MONGERING—27 STATES in this country are TOTALLY controlled by Republican govs/legislatures and Republicans control ONE House of (some 67 Houses) of the 50 STATES–do YOU really think DemocRATS will have much influence over a Convention of States based on party issues? NO, ANY Convention will come down to JUST ONE-TWO Amendments to be adopted and likely will be “Balanced Budget Amendment” PROHIBITING Congress from any more deficit budgets AND Term Limits–two Amendments Congress WILL NEVER VOTE FOR!

    Like

    Comment by shavager | December 29, 2015 | Reply

    • What you said is not true.
      Let’s start at Square One and I’ll walk you through this.

      Here is your assignment: List the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government over the Country at Large.

      Only after you know the list of enumerated powers can you understand the real problem and the real solution.

      Everything you said is factually WRONG. You are repeating lies you have been told.

      Now we will find out whether you have any interest in learning the Truth.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 30, 2015 | Reply

    • Shavager, Methinks thou dost protest too much. Whose side are you on anyway? Are you so utterly naive to believe the gop will REALLY listen to the People and REALLY do what we want even if they DID listen to us? If you do then you have proven yourself to be naive or ignorant as the gop has PROVEn themselves to be an enemy to the People and the Constitution by virtue of their ACTIONS, both commission and ommission, as they have aided and abetted Ovomit’s crime spree while lying to us that they are doing all they can to stop him.

      If that is what they call fighting Ovomit, then we truly don’t need enemies with “friends” like the gop!

      Like

      Comment by Mike Travis | February 1, 2016 | Reply

      • Dr. Alan Keyes describes it as our fraudulent two party system. To that, I add that the only differences between the parties are that Republicans are hypocrites. At least the Democrats are honest about what they are doing.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2016 | Reply

  4. Reblogged this on Exposing Modern Mugwumps.

    Like

    Comment by Christian Zionist | December 4, 2015 | Reply

    • USCLEF The US Constitutional Law Enforcement Force? I think this may be a troll or front to get Article 5

      Like

      Comment by ron vrooman | December 4, 2015 | Reply

      • What are you talking about? What is this “US Constitutional law enforcement force”?

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | December 4, 2015 | Reply

        • http://usclef.org/page01-about.htm

          this is the group that wants con con for all their good reasons. That do not bind the congress.

          Like

          Comment by ron vrooman | December 4, 2015 | Reply

          • Oh my! I was just there – they should stop meddling in matters they do not understand.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 4, 2015

          • Please tell them so.

            Like

            Comment by ron vrooman | December 4, 2015

          • You may quote me!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 4, 2015

  5. This is just more of the same misinformation being propagated by people who may be well intentioned but who could not be more wrong.
    At ANY time congress could propose the SCARY amendments Publius speaks of. Why don’t they? Because they would never be ratified.
    An Article V Convention does not have the power to change the method of ratification. PERIOD.
    It is for “proposing amendments. which in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states.” Key words being AS PART OF THIS CONSTITUTION and WHEN RATIFIED … BY THREE FOURTHS.

    So while radical amendments could certainly be proposed, they would never be ratified. And the Ratification method cannot be changed.

    OR we can just keep the system we have. Where the President alters and abolishes any and every part of the constitution he chooses on a daily basis.
    SCOTUS alters and abolishes any part they don’t like multiples of times EVERY term.
    Congress alters or abolishes any part they choose anytime they wish.

    Don’t be as foolish children. We don’t have a constitution in any sense today. Our nation is falling apart. Every civil liberty under threat.
    Our forefathers KNEW this day would come and they placed a failsafe in the constitution that would allow for the national government to be called back to account.

    Unfortunately the greatest enemy of restoring a balance to the highly unbalanced federal system we currently suffer under are a bunch of fear-mongering demagogues who would rather see the entire system collapse than exercise the method the framers of the constitution placed there for such a time as this.

    It is absolutely astounding to me that those who purport to love this country would so readily watch it perish without a fight.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Robert Karnes | November 28, 2015 | Reply

    • What is absolutely astounding to me is how anyone can be as belligerently ignorant as you are. If you read my paper at all [which I doubt, because I am aware that COS leaders instruct people not to read my papers or listen to my videos], you are way out of your league if you didn’t understand it. I write so that any reasonably intelligent laymen can understand what I write.

      If you didn’t read it, then shame on you for pontificating about my work.

      You have shown that you are one of the “fact-resistant humans”: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-earth-endangered-by-new-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 28, 2015 | Reply

      • I have read all of your stuff. You are flat wrong in practically every assertion you make.
        The original convention was not runaway.
        The method of ratification cannot be changed by a convention, except that of course a change could be proposed and then ratified by three fourths of the states. YES changing the method of ratification would have to be ratified according to the terms of Article V.

        Nullification is entirely unworkable. It is a proven failure. Name one MAJOR [place the states have ever nullified anything and made it stick. I don’t mean the reefer-in-chief allowing pot to be legalized.

        I am not saying an Article V is guaranteed to work. It will be hard to produce and forward good amendments. It will be hard to get them ratified. Bad amendments have virtually zero chance.

        Head-in-Sand will never work.

        What we are doing will never work.

        Nullification and Interposition will never work. EVER.
        You have no idea how the state legislatures of this country actually work. How they are bribed into federal compliance and why they will not ever do anything to threaten the flow of money.
        Or how states, in convention, are no longer subject to arbitrary federal decisions since they have the power to propose remedies that strip the federal power in question.

        As for belligerent, no. Early on I assumed you could be educated out of your ignorance. Now, I realize it is a self-imposed exile from reality.

        What you call Belligerence is disgust. Disgust that while our nation falls to pieces you sing your siren song calling all to the safety of slow perdition.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Robert Karnes | November 28, 2015 | Reply

        • Your comments is filled with untruths. Let’s deal with them one at a time:

          1) WHERE did I ever say the federal convention of 1787 was a “runaway”?

          2) You don’t understand the documented FACTS surrounding the convention of 1787. If you think you do, then
          list the FACTS and link to original source documents from our Framing era which support each of your facts”.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 28, 2015 | Reply

          • “So! Not only do Delegates to a national convention have this plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution; the precedent to do so has already been established” Publius Huldah ~ About 12 inches up the page.
            If “impose a new Constitution” doesn’t imply runaway what is it supposed to mean?

            Or perhaps “But the Delegates ignored the federal and State limitations and wrote a new Constitution”
            Publius Huldah https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/delegates-to-an-article-v-convention-cant-be-controlled-by-state-laws/
            if that doesn’t mean runaway what does it mean?

            But lets be honest and logical. Not one single state was forced to ratify the proposed constitution. It was it WAS NOT imposed it WAS proposed.

            Second, most of the delegates present had been given broad instructions “all such Alterations and farther Provisions as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union.” for example. That is Georgia’s charge. All but three were equally broad.

            If the general feeling was that it was not in keeping with the intent of the convention call why was it ratified?

            Again, above, you suggest a new mode of ratification will be used. Yet Article V is clear on how ratification will work. It requires Three Fourths of the several states.
            No discretion is left there to propose a new method. Nor does the change in ratification at the Convention of 1787 apply.
            In 1787, the contemporaneous debates in several states, particularly Rhode Island, make it clear. States NOT ratifying the new constitution would simply not be part of the United States. It was fully understood each state was sovereign and could stand on its own. In fact, by the time Rhode Island ratified the constitution, it was already adopted and being put into operation WITHOUT them. Rhode Island ratified because, in large part, they didn’t want to be alone.

            The Articles of Confederation died as an instrument when 9 states ratified because those 9 states by ratifying the new constitution implicitly pulled out of the Articles and the confederation it had described. It simply ceased to exist just as the Union Nations would cease to exist if everybody pulled out of it. Do you doubt we could withdraw from the UN? Would we need unanimous consent to do it? I think not. We don’t need unanimous consent because we are sovereign just as Virginia is, or at least was, sovereign.

            The type of convention envisioned under Article V is bound by Article V which has the methods of ratification spelled out.

            Let’s take for example ratification. If a convention can impose a new method, why don’t California, Illinois and New York simply call a convention. All three could attend, write a new constitution and then the three of them ratify it. Gosh, we could have it imposed upon us that easily.
            Oh, I know some would say they can’t call the convention because Article V says it must be called by congress upon application of 2/3rds of the states but why should that matter? After all according to your reasoning they are not bound by the terms of Article V. They don’t need no stinking congress or 34 states to call or 3/4ths to ratify.
            They can do it all by themselves and we are bound by the new constitution “imposed” upon us right?
            By your reasoning it is that easy. BUT in reality, they are bound by Article V. 2/3rfs to call, 3/4ths to ratify. If one requirement can be ignored, why can’t the other?

            The problem is that you keep using arguments like “impose a new constitution” and “new method of ratification” when both are demonstrably false. And make it clear you don’t intend to have an honest debate.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by Robert Karnes | November 28, 2015

          • The federal convention of 1787 was not a “runaway” convention. The delegates were exercising their plenipotentiary powers – powers already recognized in the 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence – to alter or abolish their “Form” of government.

            We invoked those plenipotentiary powers first, with the Declaration of Independence to throw off the British Monarchy.

            We invoked them again at the federal convention of 1787 to throw off our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and replace it with our second Constitution, the Constitution of 1787.

            Do you understand the above?

            If so, we can move to step 2.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 28, 2015

          • Aside from Franklin Graham son of Billy house of Graham I know of no one of the people I would trust to [tinker with] with the constitution. It is a really hard document to improve on for a sovereign Oregonian. Some people think that one world government is the way to solve the worlds problems, I don’t want to solve the problems in the world. I want to get the government back to their enumerated powers. Get out of my business. We the people of the united States of America and our Constitutional republic as it stands. Before you try to correct it make the bastards that are criminally stealing our country STOP.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by ron vrooman | November 28, 2015

          • The delegates were doing as they were asked to do by the legislatures in their respective states. You can toss out words like plenipotentiary all day long it means nothing. They did not exceed the charge they were given. They stayed on the reservation.

            Their work was not an act of revolution it was an act of suggestion. Simply put they said “If you want to fix it, this is what we suggest.”

            It is totally ridiculous to pretend that guys who produced a document with absolutely no binding authority were “exercising plenipotentiary power.”

            The constitution produced by the Federal Convention was mere ink on paper until the states agreed to be bound by it.

            Not one delegate at the convention had the authority to bind their state to the new document or to any article contained within the document, including the new method of ratification. AND further it was clear that no state would be bound by it against their wishes.

            Article V is also clear, 34 states have to make application and 38 states are required to ratify. A change in ratification would require 38 states to ratify the change. Anything less and we are back to sovereign states choosing whether or not we wish to quit the old union and join a new one. Just as happened in 1787.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Robert Karnes | December 1, 2015

          • Your very first sentence is NOT TRUE. Here are the States’ Credentials of and Instructions to Delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787. For each of the 12 States, please go through and point out what the States authorized the Delegates to do:
            http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=562&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28fr0032%29%29%230030003&linkText=1

            I assume you are aware that Rhode Island boycotted the Convention? And do you understand the significance that had with respect to obtaining Amendments to the Articles of Confederation?

            You will not be able to understand the States’ Instructions to Delegates unless you understand the requirements for ratifying Amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Do you know what was required to ratify an Amendment to the Articles of Confederation? Tell me, if you know – and quote authority for your answer.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 1, 2015

          • As already pointed out most of the states charged their delegates with language like Virginia’s “meet such Deputies as may be appointed and authorized by other States to assemble in Convention at Philadelphia as above recommended and to join with them in devising and discussing all such Alterations and farther provisions as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of the Union.”

            So, first they WERE given very broad authority to devise and discussing ALL such Alterations or FARTHER provisions necessary to render the Constitution ADEQUATE. Alterations covers amendments but farther means they were authorized to go beyond mere amendments.

            Second, of course RI did not attend. Do you recognize that RI could have also NOT RATIFIED and NOT BEEN BOUND by the constitution? Nor were they required to attend in order for amendments to be proposed. Under the AoC they would have been required to ratify an amendment. The new federal constitution was not an amendment and it was also not binding on any state that choose not to be a party.

            BUT you fail to answer or even address the real question. You toss out big scary words like plenipotentiary but do you even know what the word means?
            Here we go:
            noun, plural plenipotentiaries.
            1. a person, especially a diplomatic agent, invested with full power or authority to transact business on behalf of another.
            adjective
            2. invested with full power or authority, as a diplomatic agent.
            3. conferring or bestowing full power, as a commission.
            4. absolute or full, as power.

            I think you can see A plenipotentiary has FULL POWER as an agent for whatever person or body which has appointed them.

            So the question again is WHICH DELEGATE AT THE CONVENTION HAD AUTHORITY TO BIND THEIR STATE OR ANY STATE TO THE NEW CONSTITUTION?

            That’s right NO DELEGATE HAD THAT AUTHORITY.

            No delegate was a plenipotentiary. They were charged with devising such alterations as may be necessary and then reporting the same back to congress and the states.
            HOW MANY STATES WERE BOUND BY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION BEFORE THEY RATIFIED IT? NO STATE WAS BOUND UNTIL 9 STATES RATIFIED AND THEN ONLY THE STATES THAT RATIFIED WERE BOUND.

            YOU MENTIONED RI. WAS RI BOUND BEFORE IT RATIFIED? NO!!!! Even though the constitution had been adopted Rhode Island was still not bound until Rhode Island ratified.

            Finally as noted above, yes every state was required to ratify AoC amendments. BUT ANY STATE WAS FREE TO WITHDRAW FROM THE AOC. Which is what happened as soon as 9 states ratified the new constitution.

            You see, it is like this, an Article V Convention is for PROPOSING AMENDMENTS. “shall call a convention for proposing amendments”

            No delegate will have the authority to bind their state to any amendment proposed. Just like in Philadelphia. They might propose many things but they will have no binding authority.

            I assume your site is broken since it prevents me from commenting in reply to you last comment directly.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Robert Karnes | December 4, 2015

          • Tsk, tsk: Now tell the Truth: Did you actually read the States’ instructions to delegates? Or did you repeat what COS claims are the operative words in the Instructions? Since I’ve heard over & over what you said, I suspect you are merely repeating what you have been told by the COS people.

            It is not likely that you will understand the States’ instructions to delegates unless you understand what was required to ratify Amendments to the Articles of Confederation. I’ll ask you: WHAT was required to ratify Amendments to the Articles of Confederation? Answer that question and then cite your source.
            THEN, I’ll show you how to read the States’ instructions.
            As a People, we MUST learn how to think for ourselves – and stop uncritically accepting what others tell us.

            I know there re issues with my web site – but I am not computer savvy.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 4, 2015

          • I’ll give you a nudge in the right direction:

            1. Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation provided that Amendments to the Articles of Confederation had to be approved by the Continental Congress AND by all of the States.

            2. https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/exhibits-to-publius-huldah-speech-in-lebanon-tn-june-22-2015.pdf If you will click on the forgoing link, you will see my analysis of the 12 States’ instructions to delegates. The operative words are set forth.

            Let me know if you have questions re.
            Do you see?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 8, 2015

          • What does plenipotentiary mean? I have already provided the definition but do you recognize it?

            Which delegate had plenipotentiary power in Philadelphia? Which delegate had the authority to bind ANY state to the new constitution?

            Be honest. Not a single delegate had that authority.

            Nor would ANY delegate to an Article V Convention, held today, have that authority.

            Your entire argument is built on a falsehood and really a string of falsehoods. It is impossible to believe you don’t know it.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Robert Karnes | December 8, 2015

          • Robert: You don’t know what you are talking about. And you reflect the malice of those who have been dishing up the lies you repeat. If you are unwilling to approach this honestly, then go away. You are not worth my time.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 8, 2015

          • Robert you are not ignorant. However, you obfuscate. The dumbed down population, does not even realize they are chattel. The nose under the tent is the con con and it takes 34 to get there. Then any changes made are submitted to the states for ratification. With the form of government we now have acting in color of law and 50% of the population sucking on the federal tit in one form or another. It will be hard fought and the outcome will come from the barrel of a gun. Any one that is for Article V con con is a troll for the UN and I name them PINO.

            Molon Labe I took my oath in 1956 and keep it. I am also a Son of the Revolution. How say you?

            Like

            Comment by ron vrooman | December 8, 2015

          • Ron, only proposed amendments are submitted to the States for ratification or rejection.

            But if the delegates propose a new Constitution, the new Constitution would set forth its own new mode of ratification. E.g., The Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a Referendum called by the President (Article XII, Sec. 1). The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. The Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America is ratified by the Provisional Governing Council established under the Revolutionary Communist Party (Art. V, Sec. 1)

            But don’t expect Robert Karnes to understand any of this – he can’t grasp the concept of the exercise of plenipotentiary powers….. it’s too abstract for him.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 8, 2015

          • You are right. It is pointless.
            The very simple questions of what is a plenipotentiary and who had plenipotentiary power at the original convention is one you flat refuse to address. This even though you assert any Article V convention would be attended by plenipotentiaries who will impose a new constitution against the will of the states.

            Like

            Comment by Robert Karnes | December 8, 2015

          • I was trying to get YOU to THINK FOR YOURSELF. But all you seem to be able to do is regurgitate what you have been told. You are too ignorant to see that you have been sold a lie. You blithering idiot – I have addressed over & over the natural right of a People to throw off their Form of government – I have given two examples of where this has already been done in American history. The video I linked to on the Principled Policy Blog lists several more examples in English History where this plenipotentiary power has been exercised.

            But you are too STUPID to understand. With you, one apparently should not use words of more than two syllables. And one must stick to concrete examples and avoid abstract concepts. They are over your head.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 8, 2015

  6. “Congress calls a convention” – This is incorrect. It is the States that call a convention. You may have a point but I think y’all are under some fundamental misunderstandings about an Article V convention of the States.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Lynn Repko | November 27, 2015 | Reply

    • Here is your assignment:
      Quote the provision of Article V, US Constitution, which says that States “call” the convention. Post the quote here.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 27, 2015 | Reply

  7. […] Source: Open Letter to State Legislators Everywhere: The Other Side of the Article V Convention Issue […]

    Like

    Pingback by Open Letter to State Legislators Everywhere: The Other Side of the Article V Convention Issue | Rifleman III Journal | November 26, 2015 | Reply

  8. Reblogged this on Reality Check and commented:
    I’ll add here that any Convention created will wind up starting a war within the country. Americans who believe in what we have will NOT stand for the destruction of America as we know it.

    As he stated, “For the Love of God and Country, heed this warning”.

    Mark me well, if you try to destroy our constitution we will destroy you.

    Like

    Comment by American Patriot | November 26, 2015 | Reply

    • re posted on One Political Plaza

      Like

      Comment by ron | November 26, 2015 | Reply

  9. Fantastic blog! You cut right through the crud and obfuscations that have been piled on top of our Constitution.

    Like

    Comment by Lame-R | November 26, 2015 | Reply

  10. On article V! I have asked several people in the legislature where this stands in Oregon. I get the answer it will probably not come to a vote this years session.
    When I ask formally with public records request. I get zero response, no answer, when I call to follow up I get passed around and no answer.
    I sent, last week, a public records request to the legislative counsel Dexter Johnson. No answer. He has answered previous requests that he is not the repository of that information.
    Stonewall is what I see.

    Like

    Comment by Ron vrooman | November 25, 2015 | Reply

    • most people look this up for themselves OR they have friends do it for them. It’s not a matter of a public records request. You need to find a friendly lobbyist to show you how to get this information. or learn how to find it for yourself. Go here and look around: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws if I were looking, that is where I would start.

      http://www.articlevlibrary.com/apptable.php?type=Application&sort=S&order=A click on the foregoing link and you can get a fairly current status [at least up to last year] for Oregon. See documents 302-309. Some of those applications are moot. Some appear to be outstanding – I didn’t read them. The John Birch Society has an excellent model for rescinding outstanding applications for an Art. V convention.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 25, 2015 | Reply

  11. I truly wonder if the people attending the pro-convention gatherings are open to hearing the “other side”? I doubt that they are.

    I also wonder if attempting to educate the man on the street isn’t a futile exercise? Would it not be better to focus 100% of the “other side’s” attention on educating State legislators? A persistent and consistent effort to feed it to them one bite at a time? Few will spend enough time to learn it in a single setting. It needs to be delivered in pieces. Just a thought.

    Like

    Comment by The Smart Way for Cobb | November 25, 2015 | Reply

    • My hope is that readers like you will take this to YOUR State legislators – and explain it to them. If you can turn on the lights for 1 or 2 of the right people in your State legislature, you can get your State to reject this.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 25, 2015 | Reply

      • PH, you answered my question (sort of) which is how do we stop this Art V nonsense? For those of us who have not been directly involved in the political machinations required to “get something done”, it is a mystery as to how do we really “get something done”.

        Have you written on this on your blog? If so, a note would be most appreciated. If not, perhaps you might consider doing so. Thank you most sincerely for your efforts! May God Bless you and all who defend America.

        Like

        Comment by Mike Travis | February 1, 2016 | Reply

        • The Problem, from which all the rest arise, is that Americans have lost their virtue; and they have become so dumbed down (by the public schools, TV, etc.) that they know nothing and can’t think. We have become a moral, lazy people who care for nothing except self-indulgence, our egos, pride, comfort, and “feeling good”.

          Only a moral, spiritual, and intellectual Regeneration will restore our Republic. I write about the change in our mind-set in the 3 papers here (read oldest one first. The paper about Marco Rubio led to my getting kicked off (as a writer) Canada Free Press – no criticism of Rubio allowed there! https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/existentialism/

          The regeneration starts within each individual person. But for the most part, our pastors are part of the Problem. Only a few are doing their Job.

          In the meantime, if we permit an Article V convention – IT’S OVER FOR US. Too many State Legislators are too ignorant of our Founding Documents – too cowardly to stand up for what is right – and too conceited to listen to voices of wisdom. Michael Farris, et al, tell them what they want to hear and they fall for it. The State Legislators reflect the People who elected them. An ignorant corrupt People elect ignorant corrupt politicians.

          But some State Politicians are virtuous. We must equip them with the knowledge they need to fight evil in their State.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2016 | Reply

  12. Maybe flyer the conferences out of which you and others have been shut out.

    Explain on the flyer why an Article V is a bad idea (I agree with you – liberals will dominate it).

    That way the attendees get the message.

    D

    Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:26:58 +0000
    To: dboyajian@msn.com

    Like

    Comment by David Boyajian | November 25, 2015 | Reply

  13. […] Source: Open Letter to State Legislators Everywhere: The Other Side of the Article V Convention Issue « Pub… […]

    Like

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

  14. […] If there is an Article V convention, we will lose the Constitution we have, and another Constitution… […]

    Like

    Pingback by Open Letter to State Legislators Everywhere: The Other Side of the Article V Convention Issue | Western Rifle Shooters Association | November 25, 2015 | Reply

  15. Sobering, serious and imminent. I won’t waste the bandwidth to send it to my “elected elite”. It is squarely up to us, We The People, to take the necessary actions.

    As always I thank you, PH, and those linked in your message, wholeheartedly.

    Like

    Comment by wisdomdepot | November 25, 2015 | Reply

    • Please do send it to your State legislators: SOME have read it and GET it. All you need is one State Legislator who can light a fire in your State Legislature….

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 25, 2015 | Reply

  16. _____

    Like

    Comment by dtaylormesa | November 25, 2015 | Reply

  17. Great comments about a proposed Article V Constitutional Convention/Referendum. I recently read that the wife of presidential candidate Ted Cruz served on the committee to help set up a constitution for a North American Union modeled after that of the failed European Union. Any comments or confirmations on that??

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by paradigmrw | November 25, 2015 | Reply


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: