Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

How to use Article V of our Constitution to move us into the North American Union

By Publius Huldah

Article V convention supporters seem to think they are oh! so clever when they accuse those of us who oppose an Article V convention of “fear mongering”.

Well, I graduated from “fearfulness” long ago – now I’m in the HORROR stage: Under the North American Union (NAU), Canada, the United States, and Mexico merge and a Parliament is set up over them. This was President George W. Bush’s plan, cooked up during 2005 at his ranch in Texas with the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico.

But in order to set this up, they need a new Constitution which transforms the United States from a sovereign nation to a member state of the NAU.

How do they get the new Constitution? At an Article V convention.

How do they get an Article V convention? Tell the American People that at an Article V convention, they can get Amendments to our existing Constitution which will “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”.

And, as ordinary citizens who support an Article V convention give daily proof, such tactics work. People don’t think – they follow what popular people tell them, and then they repeat it as if they know all about it.  And they insult, revile and marginalize the people who do tell them the Truth (as they have been programmed by their Conditioners to do).

Americans don’t know that delegates to an Article V convention have “PLENIPOTENTIARY POWERS” and thus have the power (recognized in the 2nd paragraph of our Declaration of Independence) to throw off our present Constitution and establish a new one with a new (and easier) mode of ratification.

Americans don’t know that in Federalist Paper No. 40 (15th para), James Madison invoked this clause in the Declaration of Independence as justification for what they did at the federal convention of 1787:   Instead of proposing Amendments to the Articles of Confederation (as they had been instructed to do), they wrote an entirely new Constitution which created a new government.

Americans don’t know that because of these plenipotentiary powers, Delegates to an Article V convention can do whatever they want.  It doesn’t matter whether they were sent to the convention for “the sole and express purpose” of proposing a balanced budget amendment, or a term limits amendment, or a countermand amendment, or some other designated purpose – they are not bound by those spurious limitations.

Americans don’t know that “faithful delegates” laws are a joke: Not only do delegates have plenipotentiary powers and sovereign immunity for whatever they do; it is a simple matter to circumvent “faithful delegate” laws.

So that’s how a Constitutional Republic is destroyed and replaced by a global government.

You can read about the NAU here. Read the Task Force Report. Heidi Cruz was on the Task Force which wrote the report. http://www.cfr.org/…/building-north-american-community/p8102

Questions: Is Senator Ted Cruz in on this plan to move us into the NAU? Is Governor Greg Abbott of Texas in on this plan to move us into the NAU? Is Lt. Gov Dan Patrick of Texas in on this plan?

People! Your guides are leading you astray and are confusing the path you should take. You better start using your own heads – and you better start doing it today. We are close to having Congress call an Article V convention. You better get with your State Legislators and educate them about the dangers and give them the Facts.

If you continue to refuse to hear the Truth; and if you continue to revile those who do tell the Truth, then the blood of a great many people will be on your head.

Hell is just around the corner. Look at Western Europe – how has the EU worked out?  Americans better wise up now. Stop an Article V convention.  Tell your State legislators to rescind the applications for a convention your State has already passed; and tell them not to pass any more applications.  For an unofficial list (by State) of applications to Congress which have already been passed, go HERE.

Update June23, 2017:  The CFR has since removed the Task Force Report from their website.  Now, one must purchase a copy.  It’s on Amazon.

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

February 5, 2017 - Posted by | Article V Convention, Delegates to a convention can't be controlled, George W. Bush, Gov. Greg Abbott, Heidi Cruz, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, North American Union, Ted Cruz | , , , , , , , , , , ,

91 Comments »

  1. […] Source: How to use Article V of our Constitution to move us into the North American Union « Publius-Huldah&… […]

    Like

    Pingback by How to use Article V of our Constitution to move us into the North American Union  | Topcat1957's Blog | July 6, 2017 | Reply

  2. […] See THIS short commentary on the NAU. […]

    Like

    Pingback by Article V Convention: NC General Assembly Doubling Back in the Wrong Direction | Beaufort County Now | Topcat1957's Blog | July 6, 2017 | Reply

  3. […] member state of the NAU. To get this new Constitution, they need an Article V convention. See this brief commentary […]

    Like

    Pingback by The George Mason Fabrication « Publius-Huldah's Blog | June 7, 2017 | Reply

  4. […] member state of the NAU. To get this new Constitution, they need an Article V convention. See this brief commentary […]

    Like

    Pingback by George Mason fabrication | Conservative News and Views | June 6, 2017 | Reply

  5. […] The globalist elite [the Bush family, et al] want to move our Country into the North American Union (NAU).  Under the NAU, Canada, the United States, and Mexico merge, and a Parliament is set up over them.  Until recently, a copy of the Task Force Report on the NAU was posted at the website of the Council on Foreign Relations; now one must purchase a copy.  The globalists need a new Constitution for the United States which transforms us from a sovereign nation to a member state of the NAU. To get this new Constitution, they need an Article V convention.  See this brief commentary. […]

    Like

    Pingback by The George Mason Fabrication for an Article V Convention - NorthWest Liberty News | June 5, 2017 | Reply

  6. […] member state of the NAU. To get this new Constitution, they need an Article V convention. See this brief commentary […]

    Like

    Pingback by The George Mason Fabrication - Fairfax Free Citizen | June 3, 2017 | Reply

  7. […] state of the NAU. To get this new Constitution, they need an Article V convention.  See this brief commentary […]

    Like

    Pingback by The George Mason Fabrication | NoisyRoom.net | June 3, 2017 | Reply

  8. […] have a moral choice before you: Consider this advice from a friend; or jump on the bandwagon pulled by the globalists and clamor for an Article V […]

    Like

    Pingback by Term Limits: A Palliative not a Cure « Publius-Huldah's Blog | June 3, 2017 | Reply

  9. […] state of the NAU. To get this new Constitution, they need an Article V convention.  See this brief commentary […]

    Like

    Pingback by News With Views | The George Mason Fabrication | June 3, 2017 | Reply

  10. […] have a moral choice before you:  Consider this advice from a friend; or jump on the bandwagon pulled by the globalists and clamor for an Article V […]

    Like

    Pingback by News With Views | Term Limits: A Palliative Not A Cure | May 13, 2017 | Reply

  11. […] have a moral choice before you:  Consider this advice from a friend; or jump on the bandwagon pulled by the globalists and clamor for an Article V […]

    Like

    Pingback by Term Limits: A Palliative Not a Cure - Fairfax Free Citizen | May 9, 2017 | Reply

  12. […] have a moral choice before you:  Consider this advice from a friend; or jump on the bandwagon pulled by the globalists and clamor for an Article V […]

    Like

    Pingback by Term Limits: A Palliative not a Cure | NoisyRoom.net | May 9, 2017 | Reply

  13. We’ve already had one illegally adopted constitution. We don’t need another one.

    http://www2.gcc.edu/orgs/GCLawJournal/articles/spring%202011/Constitution%20Illegally%20Adopted.pdf

    Like

    Comment by Helen Evans | April 13, 2017 | Reply

    • Hi, Helen!

      Actually, our Constitution of 1787 wasn’t illegally adopted. It is True that the Instructions from the Continental Congress AND the States were to propose Amendments to the Articles of Confederation; and that the Delegates to the federal convention of 1787 ignored those Instructions and wrote a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification which created a new government.

      BUT! That was all lawful: the Declaration of Independence is the Fundamental Act of our Founding. And it specifically recognizes the Right of a People to throw off a government and set up a new one. We have invoked that Principle twice in our history:

      In 1776 to throw off the British Monarchy; and

      In 1787 to throw off the Articles of Confederation and the gov’t it created; and set up a new Constitution (the Constitution of 1787) which created a new government. And if you read Federalist No. 40, at the 15th para, you will see where James Madison, Father of our Constitution, specifically invoked this Right as justification for what they did at the federal “amendments” convention of 1787.

      Michael Farris does seem to be willfully blind on this issue.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 13, 2017 | Reply

      • …and in 1861 when the southern states instituted “[a] new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

        PH, wasn’t the constitution illegally forced onto states that didn’t vote for it. RI and NC (i think ) voted that all 13 states would ratify any amendments, but then had a new government that they didn’t vote for forced on them. The law was that they would amend the articles of confederation. So is it legal to force a new government on a people that don’t want it? Could the US make a treaty with Japan that says both sides must agree to a change to this agreement then the US changes the agreement on its own and forces it on Japan?

        Like

        Comment by Kim Blackman | April 21, 2017 | Reply

        • 1. Yes, the Southern States did have that “self-evident Right”, recognized in the 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence, to throw off the federal government and to set up a new government, The Confederate States of America.

          2. Our Constitution of 1787 was legally imposed. It is true that the Articles of Confederation required that Amendments to the Articles be approved by ALL of the then 13 States and the Continental Congress. But the new Constitution drafted at the federal convention of 1787, provided at Article VII, that it would go into effect when ratified by 9 States, but only as to those 9 states. Any States who chose not to ratify the new Constitution would have the status of “foreign States”. See Article VII.

          Rhode Island and North Carolina were the last two States to ratify the Constitution of 1787, but they did so voluntarily.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 21, 2017 | Reply

  14. I am very thankful for you and your tireless efforts as an advocate to see that this effort
    is defeated. Have you ever had contact with
    Mark Stein? He is a tireless pro-American on night time radio and now TV but he is on the other side of this issue. Hasn’t seen the light yet! So please contact him. I will also do this.
    You are the best and brightest on this issue!

    Like

    Comment by Donald Vice | February 18, 2017 | Reply

    • Thanks, Donald!

      It’s very hard to make contact with famous people! I would love to sit down with some of these people – but they seem insulated from contacts from those outside of their own circle.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 18, 2017 | Reply

  15. As I read the full letter to Tuberville and Federalist #85, it seems to me that Madison and Hamilton, respectively, were concerned about attempts at the time to further change the Constitution — not years later. Didn’t they, after all, argue in favor of the Constitution with Article V as part of it? This doesn’t negate the caution this blog makes, but it think it says you are going a bit too far on this point.

    Like

    Comment by Paul Robberson | February 14, 2017 | Reply

    • “It seems to you” – oh well, then, that’s conclusive!

      Seriously, what you presented is the typical canned COS response – I’ve heard it before. But no one from COS can show why he limits Hamilton’s “dread” of an Article V convention; and Madison’s “trembling” at the prospect of an Article V convention, to the conditions of 1788. But if you can do so, and support your answer with documentary Evidence, I am all ears!

      You must also read Federalist No. 49 and explain why the author’s comments about human nature should be limited to the American People of 1788 – and are not comments on human nature which apply for all time.

      Hamilton and Madison both argued for ratification of the Constitution of 1787, as any serious student of The Federalist Papers is well aware. And what did Hamilton and Madison also say about the Constitution whose ratification they were supporting? That it wasn’t perfect – but that it was the best that imperfect man could do under the circumstances of the time: E.g., Hamilton was an abolitionist – but he compromised on the slavery issue. Madison wanted to end the slave trade [the importation of new slaves] immediately, but had to compromise on letting the importations continue until January 1808. From the beginning, Madison argued against the convention method of proposing amendments and ALWAYS said that when States want amendments, they should instruct their congressional delegations to propose them.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 17, 2017 | Reply

      • You seem quite angry. Why? I guarantee you that my post was not taken from any source other than my reading of the Tuberville letter and the Federalist papers. In any case, your snide remark is enough for me. This is the last time I will post anything here, or even look at this blog.

        Like

        Comment by Paul Robberson | February 17, 2017 | Reply

        • COS minions always say the same things.

          And if you think that your departure from my blog causes me concern, I suggest you suffer from an overweening sense of self-importance.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 17, 2017 | Reply

          • I can’t answer for anyone else. People like you are trying to destroy my Constitution with its protections, and my government (as bad as it is), my state, and eventually you will try to destroy me. For myself traitors like me make me madder than hell.

            Like

            Comment by Randy Claywell | February 18, 2017

          • What are you talking about?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 19, 2017

  16. […] Article reposted with permission from Publius Huldah […]

    Like

    Pingback by How to use Article V of our Constitution to move us into the North American Union - NorthWest Liberty News | February 8, 2017 | Reply

  17. I still support the convention of states…

    Like

    Comment by meanderingthoughts2017 | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • I would expect nothing more from a person whose thoughts “meander”.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  18. We’re not creating a new Constitution. It is only allowed to change the Constitution, not replace it.

    Please stop the fear-mongering.

    Like

    Comment by patriotmongoose | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • And you know this because ….. Oh yes! COS told you!

      Anyone who doesn’t “fear” an Article V convention doesn’t see:

      what James Madison saw (he “trembled” at the prospect);
      what Alexander Hamilton saw (he “dreaded” the consequences of one);
      what Justice Arthur Goldberg saw (“any attempt at limiting the agenda would almost certainly be unenforceable”);
      what Chief Justice Warren Burger saw (“…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…”; “…A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…”; and
      what Justice Scalia said on April 17, 2014, “”I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that?”

      You know better than they do, right?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • an “article V convention” is NOT a “constitutional convention”. please stop confusing the two. I’m not sure if you’re doing it on purpose to obscure the argument or not….currently I’m leaning towards “you know the difference but that doesn’t help your argument against, so you keep up the confusion”

        an article V convention has the power to PROPOSE amendments. period. end. full stop.

        it has none of these other powers you ascribe to it and can’t have those powers. it can’t create or propose a new constitution. it can’t change the methods of ratification of constitutional amendments.

        Article V

        The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, 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, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

        please point to where in this text an article V convention somehow has these new powers. you can’t. it’s not in there and never was.

        Like

        Comment by warhorse | February 8, 2017 | Reply

        • I have some questions for you:

          1. What Principle was invoked in our Declaration of Independence to justify overthrowing the British Monarchy?

          2. What was our First Constitution? How did we get from our First Constitution to our Second Constitution? Detail the steps taken and provide links to original source documents to support your answer.

          3. Re your assertions in your comment: Do you have personal knowledge of the matters of which you spoke, or are you repeating what you have been told? What is the distinction between having “personal knowledge” and “repeating what one has been told”?

          4. Why did James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Justice Arthur Goldberg, Chief Justice Warren Burger, and Justice Antonin Scalia oppose an Article V convention?

          5. Are you aware that these men were aware that Delegates to an Article V convention could not be controlled?

          6. What is the connection between a certain clause in the 2nd paragraph of our Declaration of Independence and the inability of Congress and the States to control Delegates to an Article V convention?

          7. Do you believe that YOU know more about this than did Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and the 3 above named US Supreme Court Justices?

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2017 | Reply

  19. The Framers knew they had no authority to control the people’s natural right to alter or abolish their form of government (see Declaration of Independence). Which is why Article V concerning the convention is so vague.

    In his Farewell Address, President George Washington (who also had served as the president of the Constitutional Convention of 1787), taught us in accordance to the DOI and Natural Law that:

    The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. [Empahsis Mine

    Yet COS is teaching a subversive principle which undermines that natural right. By claiming a Article V can be limited by the individual State governments (which is completely self-refuting in itself), they are teaching that government is superior to the people themselves. That they are our masters and not the other way around.

    The quote from Washington’s Address also dispels the myth of a secret constitution existing and having any legal weight.

    Like

    Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • Yes, you nailed it! Thank you!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  20. It is true that support for the North American Union (NAU) is high only among the globalists. The People would be against it (if they knew about it).

    But that’s not a problem for the global elite: By tricking us into supporting and applying for an Article V convention [and they trick us by telling us what we want to hear; by exploiting our ignorance of our founding documents and our founding history; and by getting popular people to support it], they will have the opportunity, once the Convention convenes, to impose a new Constitution which moves the United States into the NAU.

    And since the new Constitution will have its own new mode of ratification, the new Constitution is certain to be ratified.

    The Delegates to an Article V convention have “plenipotentiary powers” – the power to throw off our existing Form of government [our Constitution of 1787] and set up a new Constitution which creates a new government which is a member state in the NAU. Read and ponder this: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/4-bullet-points-for-wy.pdf

    [The sad fact that most Americans have never heard of “plenipotentiary powers” does NOT mean that there is no such thing!]

    People who aren’t familiar with the 2nd para of our Declaration of Independence; and who don’t know the details of how our first Constitution (the Articles of Confederation) was replaced by our second Constitution (our existing Constitution of 1787), are unaware that all the NAU globalists have to do is bribe the Delegates to an Article V convention and get them to impose the new Constitution they need to move us into the NAU.

    They have the money to do it! Look who is behind the NAU: The Bush Family, the Cruz Family, The Council on Foreign Relations, and others. All US Presidents since (and including) Ronald Regan have been advancing our movement into the NAU. Watch this excellent 15 minute video: https://youtu.be/lNhp9H3yCsI

    This is a Revolution against us by the global elite. This push for an Article V convention is from the top down – it is how the Elite can impose their will on us.

    Do not continue to unwittingly assist the global elite in enforcing their will on us!

    Like

    Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • Forgive my ignorance, wouldn’t 3/4 of the States still have to ratify the NAU?

      Like

      Comment by Lamom | February 12, 2017 | Reply

      • If Delegates to an Article V convention create a new Constitution which makes us a member of the North American Union (NAU), that new Constitution would have its own new mode of ratification. That new mode of ratification would be any method which would guarantee ratification: it could be a national referendum [the people who control the machines in key areas would determine the outcome. Who believes Hillary really won the national popular vote by 3 million votes? She couldn’t even fill a high school gym at her rallies.]

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2017 | Reply

  21. I have no fear that an Article V convention will result in a rogue convention that writes a new Constitution. There are too many protections in the calling of such a convention. It was not a foregone conclusion that the original convention that created our Constitution would do such a thing, and after they wrote the Constitution, it was not a foregone conclusion that the states would ratify it.

    I don’t fear an Article V convention. First, since the convention must be called by Congress if 2/3 of the states want it, Congress won’t be blindsided by its existence or its work. Nothing prevents members of Congress from observing what it does. It would be hard to hide a revolutionary purpose from that kind of scrutiny.

    Additionally, even though I don’t trust the American press very much, I do believe they would be alert to any hint that delegates were attempting to cover up such activity. I don’t believe it would be possible to suppress evidence of action at the convention that attempted to write a new Constitution and redefine the country.

    Finally, I believe it would be difficult to lure the unknown number of delegates of fifty states into the kind of conspiracy required to write a Constitution in secrecy in today’s world. This convention will attract attention, and that is good. Furthermore, unless the new Constitution were ratified by the states, no new country would be born.

    Perhaps, if I were hearing a lot of people opine that we would be better off if we had a union like the EU, I would worry. I don’t hear or see any evidence that anybody wants to dissolve this country. There is a real power struggle for control of it. Our nation would greatly benefit from amendments that draw hard lines in the sand around the federal government consistent with the original intent that enumerated powers would keep that federal government small. Amendments that shrink federal government and build up state sovereignty and autonomy would make it much harder for any rogue initiatives to take root.

    …. link deleted by PH …..

    An Article V convention is a the gift of the Framers to all generations of citizens for power to act when the federal government oversteps its bounds.

    Like

    Comment by Katherine Harms | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • Ms. Harms:

      “Feelings” are not “facts”; and what you “do not fear” and what you “believe” or “don’t believe”, are logically irrelevant to constitutional issues. Surely you can see that.

      If a child is playing with a coral snake and does not “fear” it, does that prove that the snake is safe to play with? Or might it suggest that the child is ignorant of the danger?

      And when you don’t see any evidence of something, does that mean there is no evidence? Or might it suggest that you are blind?

      Finally, would you do something which no one before you has done: Would you produce the actual writing where the Framers said an Article V convention is to be used when the federal government oversteps its bounds?

      That is something COS leaders and followers chant all the time – but no one can produce the quote.

      Surely you would not repeat that claim unless you had verified that it were True, right?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • Actually, you would need to read the Federalist papers in order to find that explanation. You won’t find my precise words, because the authors of the Federalist used rather different language. They look at the history of governments prior to the American Revolution, and they observe that all governments tend to become tyrannical unless there is the power for the governed to push back. In the case of the republic they were designing, they gave the governed, the states, the power to restrain by giving them the power to amend. They applied restraint to the states by specifying that Congress would call the convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. As you know, Congress has the power to enforce its instructions, something the government under the Articles did not have. Also, in today’s world, such a convention would be scrutinized, analyzed, and tweeted to the world. Further, the convention of states has no power to compel anything. Every amendment proposed must be ratified by 3/4 of the states in order to take effect.
        I used the word “feel” and the word “fear” conversationally, and that was a bad choice; what I intended was to say that the Constitution and the documents surrounding its writing lead me to conclude that there is plenty of power in place to confine the convention to its Constitutionally defined purpose.

        Like

        Comment by Katherine Harms | February 8, 2017 | Reply

        • I am familiar with The Federalist Papers.

          1. You said the Framers said an Article V convention is to be used when the federal government oversteps its bounds. I’m asking YOU to produce the quote where any of them said that. You made the assertion – You must produce the quote and link.

          2. Please quote those provisions from Article V of our Constitution which provide for “a convention of States”.

          3. Provide the quotes and links which “lead you to conclude” that Delegates to an Article V convention can be confined to drafting Amendments. And please explain why James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Justice Arthur Goldberg, Chief Justice Warren Burger, and Justice Antonim Scalia were wrong. They would say you don’t know what you are talking about!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2017 | Reply

  22. I share concerns regarding the formation of “super” or “supra-national” governments, but an Article V convention of states is far more likely to prevent such formations than aid them. The express purposes of a convention of states being proposed by COS Action are to re-limit federal powers and to impose both fiscal restraints and term limits on federal government officials, including judges. This would make it LESS likely that our federal overlords would be able to force something like NAU on us. In fact, some members of Congress are now proposing things like term limits (pretending to be sincere about it) as a smokescreen to blunt the calling of a convention of states. This includes Senator Cruz, who I doubt very much is actually in favor of term limits now that he walks the gilded halls of power.

    If we can successfully return power from our overweening federal nanny state to states, communities, and individuals through sound constitutional amendments, we will have made great progress in the PREVENTION of the formation of EU Heavy. At at Article V convention, each state will have one vote, and each state legislature will be able to give specific and limiting instructions to its delegates – those delegates will NOT have the plenipotentiary power that was expressly granted by the states back in 1787 in recognition of the fatal weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.

    So, a convention of states, properly convened and managed, will prevent further consolidations of power at the top of the global food chain, and reinforce the safeguards of our individual liberties in the United States of America (perhaps sans California, which I’m not sure would be a bad thing given the utter nonsense going on in Sacramento).

    Like

    Comment by Michael House | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • Michael House: You get the prize for wishful pie in the sky dreaming.

      1. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Justice Arthur Goldberg, and Chief Justice Warren Burger all said in effect that Delegates to an Article V convention can’t be controlled. Justice Scalia said during April 2014, that he didn’t want a constitutional convention – who knows what would come out of that? Those were brilliant men with a profound understanding of our Constitution and of statecraft. DO YOU CLAIM TO KNOW MORE THAN THEY DID?

      2. List the enumerated powers over the Country at Large delegated by our Constitution to the federal government. Cite Article, Section, and clause where each power is delegated. Then identify specific amendments which would “re-limit” the federal powers delegated.

      3. How would YOU stop delegates to an Article V convention from proposing a new Constitution which moves us into the NAU? Go on show us how it’s done!

      4. How would YOU stop delegates from proposing the new Progressive Constitution George Soros, Cass Sunstein, Eric Holder, and Marxist law Professors all over the Country want in place by the year 2020? Go on, show us how it’s done!

      5. How will YOU prevent Delegates to an Art. V convention from being bribed to propose the Constitution the fabulously wealthy elite want? Go on, show how to stop this from happening!

      6. Quote the language in Article V of our Constitution which says each State “will have one vote”.

      7. Explain how the State Legislatures will be able to control the Delegates – and explain what Hamilton, Madison, and Justices Goldberg, Burger, and Scalia failed to understand.

      8. Show us where plenipotentiary powers were “expressly granted by the states back in 1787 in recognition of the fatal weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation”?

      9. Explain how you propose to divest delegates to an Article V convention of their inherent plenipotentiary powers (recognized in the 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence) to throw off our Constitution and set up a new government with a new Constitution.

      10. With all due respect, how can you complain of the “nonsense going on in Sacramento”?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 14, 2017 | Reply

  23. anything from an article V convention would have to be ratified by the states. the only thing it does is bypass congress. otherwise it’s identical to any other constitutional amendment. they can’t make up a new constitution. they can’t change how the amendments are ratified, other than passing an amendment to do so the traditional way. they do not have that power, can’t have that power, and if they try it anything they do is null and void.

    all they have the power to do is PROPOSE amendments and hand them to the states for ratification. period.

    Like

    Comment by warhorse | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • Article V

      The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, 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, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

      nowhere in here is the power to propose a new constitution. or change the methods of ratification. the powers are VERY specific. “shall call a convention for proposing amendments”.

      Like

      Comment by warhorse | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • If Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Justice Arthur Goldberg, Chief Justice Warren Burger, and Justice Antonin Scalia said that delegates couldn’t be controlled, who would be right, you or them?

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 14, 2017 | Reply

    • Warhorse:
      Answer these questions – providing links to original source documents to support your answer:

      1. What stops delegates to an Article V convention from proposing an entirely new Constitution with a new mode of ratification?

      2. Three former US Supreme Court Justices said delegates to an Art. V convention can’t be controlled. Prove that YOU are right and they are wrong. Use original source documents to support your answer.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 14, 2017 | Reply

    • The state legislatures will be the same ones which sent the delegates to the Article V convention. I wonder how they will vote on the proposed gutting of the Constitution?

      Like

      Comment by Randy Claywell | February 14, 2017 | Reply

      • Cite authority for your statement that the state legislatures will be the ones who send the delegates to an Article V convention.

        Read the April 11, 2014 CRS Report – what does it say about what Congress has provided in the past in its draft legislation in preparation for Article V conventions? https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/crs-report.pdf

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 14, 2017 | Reply

        • As the delegates to the original convention were selected by their state legislatures it would seem that to show continuity to the process the delegates to an Article V convention would also be selected by their state legislatures.

          Like

          Comment by Randy Claywell | February 14, 2017 | Reply

          • Don’t forget, we were operating under a different Constitution [the Articles of Confederation] when the federal convention of 1787 was called by the Continental Congress. The Continental Congress said in its Resolution of Feb 21, 1787, that the States would appoint the Delegates to the convention to be held in Philadelphia.

            If Congress today calls a convention under Article V, Congress may or may not permit the States to appoint Delegates. It is entirely up to Congress!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 14, 2017

  24. […] Article reposted with permission from Publius Huldah […]

    Liked by 1 person

    Pingback by How to use Article V of our Constitution to move us into the North American Union – USSA News | The Tea Party's Front Page | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  25. Authorizing someone (delegates) to exercise plenipotentiary powers in respect to our Constitution in a new Article 5 Constitutional Convention, might be compared to giving a general & unlimited power of attorney to one trusted friend and the very same power of attorney to 49 strangers at the same time, and trusting them all to respect our rights and best interests.

    By the time the strangers finished emptying our bank accounts or transferring our properties, it would be too late to rescind the power of attorney authorizations. It could easily be the same with a COS, considering the variety of forces that are pushing for an Article 5 Convention from both Democrats and Republicans (and others).

    It’s sort of like the “giving a blank check to a stranger” analogy that I’ve used when speaking to our State legislators against requesting that Congress call an Article 5 Convention, or a COS, or a Constitutional Convention (they are all the same).

    Not one of the legislators that I’ve spoken to yet has told me that they would give a blank personal check to a stranger (or to 49 other strangers) and trust them to not abuse that trust… and that’s exactly what calling a Convention would amount to.

    Most people that I know would be hesitant to even give a blank check to many of their own relatives. Knowing some of their relatives I don’t blame them.

    I am also confident that none of my legislators would be willing to give a general power of attorney to even one stranger let alone 49 others that they could not intimately & unconditionally control. And as we know, that is impossible.

    I simply ask them not to do the equivalent with our Constitution by calling a Convention.

    If they think that the Constitution is not adequate to meet today’s needs, and if they wish to amend the Constitution, let’s use the very same method that brought us the13th Amendment or the Bill of Rights.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by B. Carson | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Ben! I wish it were possible to “like” this more than once. Excellent analogy!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  26. I am baffled by this article. Nobody opposes surrendering U.S. sovereignty more than I do. Yet I fully support an Article V convention of the states. It’s only purpose is to reel in runaway federal government. How can all conservatives not be united in this cause as it is the very core, fundamental principle of conservatism?

    Like

    Comment by Todd Lester | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • If you want to understand, I can show you. But you must (1) want to know the Truth, (2) love Truth above all other things, and (3) be willing to make your brain sweat. If you can honestly say “yes” to all 3, then you will be able to go far. And perhaps you will experience the joy of enlightenment when the blinders are removed and you see.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

      • Publius, I find a lot of times, Convention advocates twist the wording around to appeal to the masses.

        Todd, From my understanding of Article V, there is no such thing as an “Article V convention of the States”. There’s either a Convention or not, the delegates may represent the states or the population of the nation. The details of Article V are ambiguous but it was intended too.

        To demonstrate some of the flaws of a Convention. When Scalia mentioned he feared a Constitutional Convention, Convention advocates claimed he was not talking about a Constitutional Convention, he was talking about a Convention of the States. My question is: Where is the reference for an “Article V convention of states” and if so, who represents at the Convention?

        Like

        Comment by Brian Evans | February 7, 2017 | Reply

        • Your words are wise. The term, “convention of states”, is a marketing gimmick designed to manipulate the masses into believing that States will control the convention.

          Article V says Congress “calls” the convention. Article I, Sec. 8, last clause, delegates to Congress the power to make the laws necessary and proper to exercise its power of “calling” the convention. Once 2/3 of the States have applied for a convention, it’s out of their hands! States have no power over the Convention.

          COS can’t point to ANY language within Article V which supports their story.

          This Chart contrasts the myths COS spreads with the actual Facts: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/myth-v-fact-chart-caavc1.pdf

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • Look at the extreme lack of patriotism in our politicians. If they will not enforce the Constitution right now; how can you possibly believe that those same traitors won’t rape and destroy the Constitution when they are given the power to do so? It has been said time and again that there are no restrictions on the Article V delegates. They can do whatever they want. Then they submit their perfidy to the legislatures which sent them to the convention. I don’t see how a sane person can’t understand this.

        Like

        Comment by Randy Claywell | February 14, 2017 | Reply

        • I don’t either. But the COS followers believe what they are told.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 14, 2017 | Reply

    • Ask yourself, do criminals obey the law? Clearly not if they are a criminal. So then why would you expect a criminal to obey newly created laws when they weren’t obeying any laws before?
      A runaway government ignoring the laws will not respect new laws. If they do it will only be temporary to fool the people.

      Like

      Comment by Lamom | February 12, 2017 | Reply

  27. This email is very off based. It ignores a key point in the ratification process of the Constitution.

    “Americans don’t know that delegates to an Article V convention have “PLENIPOTENTIARY POWERS” and thus have the power (recognized in the 2nd paragraph of our Declaration of Independence) to throw off our present Constitution and establish a new one with a new (and easier) mode of ratification.”

    True. But, 2/3 of the states have to ratify the new Constitution until a new mode of ratification could take place. The problem is, 2/3 of the states would not support a new Constitution. Maybe California or New York. Republicans control 68% (just 1% over the 2/3 mark 66.6667%) of the State Legislatures which would have to approve a new Constitution. The Republicans are advocating for an Article V Convention to do these different things: Balanced Budget, Term Limits, “Limiting the Power of the Federal Government”, etc. So, IF 2/3 of the states would ratify the new Constitution, it would become effective, but I think that is highly unlikely.

    Support for a North American Union is also not high. Donald Trump, who wants to SEAL OFF MEXICO, won the presidency. He won 46% of the popular vote. The people want our border protected and would not stand for this.

    This is ridiculous. In a Clinton-run, Democratic State Legislatures nation, this could happen. Absolutely. That’s why I think it’s key that if we push for an Article V Convention, we need to have Republicans in the majority of the State Legislatures to make sure what happens at the Convention and ratified by the states is what we truly want, not adding Roe v. Wade to the Constitution or overriding the 1st and 2nd amendments.

    Like

    Comment by Josh Barker | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Hi, Josh

      Let’s stick to one issue at a time.

      First Issue: Respecting the procedures for ratification of any new Constitution which Delegates to an Article V convention might propose:

      Our 1st Constitution (the Articles of Confederation) required the Continental Congress & all of the then 13 States to ratify Amendments to the Articles of Confederation (Article XIII, pages 8-9)

      But our 2nd Constitution, drafted at the amendments convention of 1787, provided at Art VII that it would require only 9 States for ratification:

      • 13 States and the Continental Congress needed to ratify amendments to our 1st Constitution; but only
      • 9 States needed to ratify our 2nd Constitution.

      If we have a convention today, there is nothing to stop Delegates from proposing a 3rd Constitution with its own new mode of ratification.

      • The Constitution for the proposed Newstates of America is ratified by a referendum called by the President [Art 12, § 1]. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

      So do you see? If the Delegates to an Article V convention decide to propose a new Constitution, THEY will decide what the new method of ratification of the new Constitution will be. It can be whatever mode of ratification they think will ensure approval: signature of the President; majority vote in congress; national referendum; whatever they want.

      The provisions in our existing Constitution re ratification won’t apply to ratification of the new Constitution. A new Constitution has its own new mode of ratification.

      Many people have commented that this “4 bullets” sheet has been very helpful to them: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/4-bullet-points-for-wy.pdf

      The hyperlinks in the “4 bullets” will take you to the original source documents.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Don’t forget – we’re doing this one issue at a time: Do you now see that if Delegates to an Article V convention propose a new Constitution (instead of proposing Amendments to our existing Constitution), that the new Constitution will have its own new mode of ratification?

      Second Point: Considering your age and level of academic and professional expertise in this field; do you think it prudent and polite for you to inform others who just may have considerable academic and professional expertise in this area that their work is “off based” and “ignores key points”?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

      • I apologize that my language was not appropriate. I understand I’m not very experienced in the field, and I certainly didn’t mean to offend you. Yes, I now understand your point on ratification processes being changed.

        Like

        Comment by Josh Barker | February 6, 2017 | Reply

        • Apology fully accepted.

          But it wasn’t the discourtesy to me which was the real problem. The real problem is when a person – who doesn’t have an extensive academic and professional background in an area – rejects what someone who does have an extensive background in the subject says for the sole reason that what the expert says contradicts what the person has been told and thinks he knows. This impedes his own intellectual and moral development.

          For example: Some 55+ years ago, I took high school physics. Since then I’ve watched some shows on PBS about physics. Say I watch the China Syndrome (a movie) and conclude that I know all about how nuclear power plants aren’t safe. And then I go to the website of a nuclear physicist (with the degrees and practical experience) and inform him that his paper saying nuclear power plants are safe is rubbish.

          So we must remember that we must NEVER let our own limited understanding of a subject be the limit of what is possible. This is what is meant by “humility” – it is a noble virtue.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • Third Issue: Josh, see my new comment about the North American Union (NAU) above. It addresses the 3rd issue you raised.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  28. Do watch this 15 minute video – is shows how the groundwork to move us into the NAU was laid during Regan’s presidency. https://youtu.be/lNhp9H3yCsI

    The last thing they need to do is impose a new Constitution making us a member State of the NAU. They do that at an Article V convention.

    Like

    Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Question: Couldn’t the States secede from the union?
      My understanding is that the Colonies declared they are Free and Independent States from the British Crown and then became unified with the Articles of Confederation. That didn’t work out and the current Constitution was birthed. Are the States not, as of Right ought to be, Free and Independent still?

      Like

      Comment by Lydia R. | March 3, 2017 | Reply

      • Yes, the States have the inherent right to secede from the Union. However, the federal government is not the problem.

        It was the States who sold the retained powers and rights to the federal government – they did it for the federal funds. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimedia/data-visualizations/2014/fiscal-50#ind1 This shows what percentage of each States’ revenue for FY 2014 was from federal funds.

        It was the American People who LOVED LOVED LOVED THE HANDOUTS! They love social security. They love medicare. They love all their subsidies and grants. There is no constitutional authority for any of that! But the Americans didn’t care – they wanted free stuff.

        So that’s the Problem. You can’t fix that by withdrawing from the Union.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 4, 2017 | Reply

        • Thank you for your reply. Yes, that’s very true. Many people feel entitled to receive money for nothing (or so they think for nothing) from the government. Many look at me like I’m crazy for wanting to keep my family away from government “benefits”. Although, I will admit, before I grasped any true concept of how our Republic is supposed to operate, I was just as ignorant.
          God bless you as you continue to bring awareness to those who are willing to listen.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Lydia R. | March 9, 2017 | Reply

          • And I was once ignorant of all these things also!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 9, 2017

  29. Every time I point out the reason not to have a convention people tell me I’m wrong and it can only be used for whatever specific purpose the convention us convened for.
    I tell them they are mistaken and we would not only end up with a new Constitution, those on the far left would have their say in a new constitution.
    But I’m the one who’s a fear mongering conspiracy theory believer.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by gamegetterII | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  30. Reblogged this on Starvin Larry.

    Like

    Comment by gamegetterII | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  31. PEOPLE. Come to your senses. This entire post is ridiculous. Do you realize what Constitution you follow? THE ONE CREATED BY THE SUPREME COURT. IT WEIGHS OVER 20 POUNDS. I follow the Constitution the Founders signed, The Pocket Constitution. COME ON.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Robyn Campbell | February 5, 2017 | Reply

    • And you know this because……. Oh, I know! It’s what COS told you!

      Robyn! You are repeating what you have been told, and you are stating it as a fact. That is wicked, immoral, and irresponsible!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2017 | Reply

  32. Your warnings are flying right over the head of an uninformed electorate. We need POTUS made aware of the dangers of this movement. Alex Jones* at Infowars (Austin, TX) has a big bullhorn, can you discuss w/him and get mass exposure? Awareness via a “big mouth” is needed, at least get people wondering/debating if they’re not playing right into the hands of subversives; of which there are many. (“Constitutionalists” like Cruz (R) Texas, duplicitous “never Trumpers”, and other “conservative” wolves in sheep’s clothing.)

    *While Mr.Jones was initially a Cruz supporter, he is now a staunch Trump supporter, and continually warns about the dangers of NWO/globalist intentions. To your detractors, I say this: the dangers are real, we should never allow the U.S.A. to slip into the same trap as Europeans did. From the sublime to the ridiculous – from a “common market” to a centralized government bureaucracy – in Brussels. Article V appears to leave us wide open to abuse.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by filia.aurea | February 5, 2017 | Reply

    • Thank you, you are right. My internet posts do seem to fly over the heads of the ordinary Citizens who have been indoctrinated with the propaganda of the con-con lobby.

      These Citizens are profoundly ignorant of our Founding Principles, our Constitution, and the actual writings of our Framers. They only “know” what they have been told, and they don’t think to demand that the people who tell them these things produce the actual documents where the things were said. For example, these Citizens will say such things as, we want to use “the very tool the Founders gave us in Article V of the Constitution to merely propose amendments to move the power of the federal government back to the states where it belongs”; but they don’t think to ask the people who feed this crap to them to produce the document(s) where our Framers said that. They just lap it up and believe every word, and then go around repeating it.

      Because they have no idea what our Constitution says, they don’t know that our Constitution already limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to the 18 or so delegated enumerated powers. Since they don’t know this, they are unable to see the ludicrous absurdity of the claim that the federal government can be restrained by amendments!

      However, when I am giving a presentation and have as little as 35 or so minutes, I can turn on the lights in the brains of most of the people in the room. Which is why the con-con lobby objects to my being allowed to speak in public.

      Anyone who will listen with an open and honest heart sees the light.

      POTUS has no power to stop this. Only the State legislatures can stop an Article V convention. They stop it by not filing any more applications for an Article V convention with Congress; and by rescinding the applications they have already filed.

      Our side has practically no money. The national organizations on our side which have taken a clear and public stance against an Article V convention are the John Birch Society and Eagle Forum. But other than them, and some truly excellent organizations in several of the States, the people fighting against an Article V convention are unfunded and unaffiliated private Citizens like me.

      The con-con lobby has endless piles of cash to spread around…..

      I know of Alex Jones; but I don’t know him.

      Another problem is that the anti-convention side seems to be black-listed from the supposedly “conservative” on-line blogs and web sites. I was kicked off Red State when I tried to post my first paper exposing the Balanced Budget Amendment as a scam; I was kicked off of Canada Press Press for writing an article critical of Marco Rubio’s words (at that time, Mark Levin wanted Rubio to be Mitt Romney’s running mate); World Net Daily won’t publish my work b/c my “demonization” of Mark Levin is unacceptable [yes, I’m not allowed to write such things as this https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/mark-levins-liberty-amendments-legalizing-tyranny/ America Thinker won’t publish my work, etc., etc., etc. Yet they publish pro Article V convention stuff.

      So there is no doubt: The “right” has been infiltrated and taken over by the big government statists; and because they are so good at putting up and maintaining a false front of being “Constitution loving patriots”, the ordinary Citizens have no idea who they really are.

      We certainly are in grave danger. We will see if the Stupid get their revenge on the Wise by destroying our Country.

      Thanks for posting!

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2017 | Reply

      • I agree, very disheartening. Red State is trash, so is Levin. I firmly believe going to the MASSES, vs the faux intellectuals is the way to go. I really believe that Alex Jones would be willing to pose this to his audience, as yet another potential threat that patriots are unaware of – because they’re only hearing one side of the story. While POTUS has no jurisdiction, every tweet he sends is seen by millions. The Conservative Treehouse won top blog of 2016. That would be a good place to post. The blog’s primary writer just wrote an excellent article shaming the never-trump crowd. Although I am not a big fan, I recall Rush Limbaugh airing Decius’ article slamming the so-called conservative #never trumpers. Please don’t give up!!

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by filia.aurea | February 6, 2017 | Reply

        • I learn every day. You are right! Of course POUTUS can do something. I always was too much of a “purist”. Let’s see, whom do I know …..

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

          • Proponents of this remedy are neither pure nor ethical. You have the best resource of all, knowledge.

            Like

            Comment by filia.aurea | February 8, 2017

          • Thanks – but how does one deal with people who mindlessly chant what they have been told?

            Ayn Rand insisted that we think for ourselves and NEVER surrender our mind to others. But these people are repeating what they have been told – they use the same terms, the same expressions, make the identical assertions (and none of them are EVER substantiated).

            They don’t seem to comprehend the need for Evidence! Proof! They just repeat what they have been told. Do they know what they are doing?

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 8, 2017

          • Many, if not all of the people the media delight in depicting as “protesters” are completely ignorant. In addition to ignorance, many are probably in the moron range on IQ testing. The good news is these people are in the minority. Just as Trump attracted so-called “Reagan democrats” to the polls, large numbers of people can still be persuaded to listen to reason. Just about everyone is familiar with “if it looks too good to be true, it probably is”. Presenting the dangers associated with the Article V route will cause a pause in momentum, increase awareness, and foster debate. People need to be made aware of what they are not being told. I recall a story told me by an elderly lady whose husband was very sick in hospital. Doctors had told her they thought the best course for him was “care and comfort”. She was pleased and agreed, until a close friend suggested she talk it over with her priest. Being a very religious person, she went and saw the priest right away and was horrified when he explained that she would essentially be agreeing to nothing short of euthanasia. Of course, she immediately rescinded her permission. Forgive the dramatics, but people really hate being fooled. This is why I believe you’ll be successful.

            Like

            Comment by filia.aurea | February 8, 2017

  33. We’re not opening up the Constitution for revision. Instead it’s the federal government who has opened up the Constitution to revision. Check out the 2738 page (and counting) annotated version of the Constitution that they’ve been writing in modern times.
    We love our Constitution and want to keep it with the very tool the Founders gave us in Article V of the Constitution to merely propose amendments to move the power of the federal government back to the states where it belongs (and as the Founders intended). That’s it. That’s all we want to do. Propose amendments. Then the proposed amendments goes to ratification in the exact same way as all the amendments that Congress proposed in the past…..

    [link deleted by PH]

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by lahbluebonnet | February 5, 2017 | Reply

    • You have been misled.

      Ask those who told you that our Framers gave us an Article V convention so we could return powers the federal government had usurped back to the States, to produce the actual writings where our Framers said that.

      You clearly don’t understand that delegates to an Article V convention have “plenipotentiary powers”. Study this and it will help you if you will open your mind: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/4-bullet-points-for-wy.pdf

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2017 | Reply

  34. Again, you are distorting Article V. A new constitution does NOT come out of an Article V convention. Rather, it proposes amendments to the CURRENT constitution we have. If anyone is advocating for a new Constitution it is you!

    Like

    Comment by Rick Bulow | February 5, 2017 | Reply

    • That is a most uninformed comment!

      Liked by 3 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2017 | Reply

      • The comment in question by James Madison was during the period between the passage of the Constitution in the convention and the ratification in Sept 1789. There was some doubt in this period that the constitution would be ratified ironically because it did not include what we know today as the bill of rights. George Mason wanted a bill of rights. When his idea was struck down he proposed an Article V convention process of proposing amendments so that an out of control government could be reigned back in by the state legislatures. The article V convention idea was accepted and passed by the delegates but the state legislatures did not think it was sufficient. In the end James Madison promised that if the states would ratify the constitution, the first congress would take up amendments to satisfy the legislatures. That is how we ended up with the bill of rights. James Madison was concerned about a second constitutional convention should the constitution not be ratified. He knew there would need to be something done about the articles of confederation because changes required the ratification off all states not a majority. This was why the delegates ignored original instructions. He never expressed concern over and “article V convention.”

        Like

        Comment by Michael Keller | February 6, 2017 | Reply

        • Michael Keller,

          Do check the dates: Federalist No. 40 was published January 18, 1788.

          The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 when the 9th State, New Hampshire, ratified it.

          On May 5, 1789, Rep. Bland of Virginia introduced the application from the Virginia for an Article V convention. https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=130

          On June 8, 1789, James Madison introduced a draft bill of rights for Congress to work on and present to the States https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=221 Read it all – up to page 468. Madison thereby circumvented Virginia’s application for an Art. V convention; for as we all know, Congress introduced the proposed bill of rights to the States.

          Your claim that Madison never expressed concern over an Article V convention is patently FALSE. You really shouldn’t blindly accept what COS tells you – it makes you look silly! But I have never met a COS quoter who is willing to look at the Evidence and the Facts. Here is Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville:http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/madison-the-writings-vol-5-1787-1790#lf1356-05_mnt081

          And as we all know – or should know – the Constitution was ratified several months before Madison’s letter to Turberville.

          You must not repeat what you have been told unless you check out the facts for yourself. It is wicked to repeat things as facts when you don’t have personal knowledge.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Bulow, read these quotes [surely you have seen them many times before], and then tell me why Madison, Hamilton, and the 3 US supreme Court Justices were “fearful” of an Article V convention.

      1. James Madison, Father of our Constitution, said in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that if there were an Art. V Convention: “the most violent partizans”, and “individuals of insidious views” would strive to be delegates and would have “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country.

      In Federalist No. 49, Madison warns against a convention to correct breaches of the Constitution. He said, the legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention and would be in a position to control the outcome of a convention.

      2. In Federalist No. 85 (last para), Alexander Hamilton said he dreads the consequences of another convention because the enemies of the Constitution want to get rid of it.

      3. Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his Sep. 14, 1986 editorial 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; and that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda would almost certainly be unenforceable.”

      4. Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly: “…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…”; “…A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…”

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2017 | Reply

  35. PH: Thanks for the update and urgent information regarding the progress of Article V Amendments. According to the state listing that you provided here, the state of Texas has not entertained any article V amendment activity in nearly 40 years for any reason. Does that mean that Gov Gregg Abbott and Lt Gov Dan Patrick agree in principle that there should not be any and will not pursue such activity, and therefore oppose such a movement? If so, would they not be instrumental in blocking approval of such in this state? paradigmrw

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by paradigmrw | February 5, 2017 | 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: