Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Exposing the real agenda behind the push for an Article V convention

This presentation was given on April 17, 2017 at the beautiful old Supreme Court Chamber at the Tennessee Capitol Building in Nashville.

Exhibit List

The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is HERE

The Chart which illustrates our Declaration, Constitution, federal structure, and enumerated powers is HERE.

The text of the “parental rights” amendment is HERE.

To see how six of Mark Levin’s “liberty amendments” do the opposite of what he claims, go HERE.

Federalist No. 16 is HERE.  See next to last paragraph.

To see – on one page – proof of the original intents of the “interstate commerce”, “general welfare”, and “necessary and proper” clauses, go HERE.

HERE is a synopsis of what happened at the Federal Convention of 1787 re the development of Article V with links to the pages in Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention.

Our Framers NEVER said the purpose of amendments is to restrain the feds if they usurp powers. What they actually said is:

The “novelty & difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision” (Gerry at the federal convention on June 5, 1787);

“The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation [Articles of Confederation] has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account….”(Geo. Mason at the federal convention on June 11, 1787);

amendments remedy defects in the Constitution (Hamilton at the federal convention on Sep. 10, 1787);

useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers” (Federalist No. 85, 13th para);

“amendment of errors” & “useful alterations” would be suggested by experience (Federalist No. 43 at 8.)

The Congressional Research Service Report dated April 11, 2014, is HERE. The Report exposes as false the assurances that the States would be in control of a convention. The Report says:

“First, Article V delegates important and exclusive authority over the amendment process to Congress…” (page 4)

“Second . . . Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including . . . (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates; (5) setting internal convention procedures, including formulae for allocation of votes among the states; . . .” (page 4)

“. . . [In previous bills filed in Congress] [a]pportionment of convention delegates among the states was generally set at the formula provided for the electoral college, with each state assigned a number equal to its combined Senate and House delegations. Some bills included the District of Columbia, assigning it three delegates, but others did not include the federal district. . .” (page 37)

“… A related question concerns vote allocation in an Article V Convention. Would delegates vote per capita, or would each state cast a single vote, during the convention’s deliberations, and on the final question of proposing amendments?…” [then follows a discussion of different views on this undecided issue] (page 41)

“Article V itself is silent on membership in an Article V Convention, so it is arguable that Congress, in summoning a convention to consider amendments, might choose to include the District of Columbia and U.S. territories as either full members at a convention, or possibly as observers. As noted previously, some versions of the Article V Convention procedures bills introduced in the late 20th century did provide for delegates representing the District of Columbia, although not for U.S. territories . . .” (page 42)

Page 40 of the Report shows there doesn’t seem to be any:

“. . . constitutional prohibition against [U.S.] Senators and Representatives serving as delegates to an Article V Convention. . . “

So! As the Report states on page 27:

“In the final analysis, the question what sort of convention?” is not likely to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and a convention assembles.”

In other words, we’ll have to get a convention before we know how it is going to operate. But by then, it will be too late to stop it. And if the proceedings are secret, we won’t find out anything until they are finished.

The Chart which shows who (States, Congress, & Delegates) has the power to do what respecting an Art. V convention is HERE.

HERE is Rob Natelson’s speech of Sep. 16, 2010 announcing that he would no longer call it a “constitutional convention”, but would henceforth call it among other things, “a convention of states”. (page 2)

HERE are the Articles of Confederation, our first Constitution. Article XIII required approval of amendments by the Continental Congress and by every State.

HERE is Federalist No. 40 (James Madison) See especially the 15th para.

HERE is the Resolution of the Continental Congress dated Feb. 21, 1787, to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia,

“…for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…”

HERE are the Credentials of the Delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787 and instructions from their States. These Instructions encompassed:

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

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

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

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

Rhode Island boycotted the convention.

HERE is the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America. Article XII, Sec. 1 (page 27) addresses ratification by a national referendum.

Read HERE about the proposed Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America. It was prepared by the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. HERE is the text of their proposed Constitution.

Read HERE about The Constitution 2020 movement funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law professors throughout the Country as well as Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder. They want a Progressive Constitution in place by the year 2020.

Read HERE about the Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) Task Force Report on the North American Union. Canada, the US, and Mexico are to merge and a Parliament will be set up over the 3 countries. The CFR site has a link to the Task Force Report. Read it!

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

Update Jan. 8, 2018:  The Task Force Report is back up on the CFR web page.  GET IT WHILE YOU CAN – IT LAYS OUT WHAT THE GLOBALISTS HAVE PLANNED FOR US

It is not the “grass roots” which is pushing for an Article V convention. The big money is behind it. See THIS and THIS.

James Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 shows that on May 29, 1787, the delegates to that convention voted to make their proceedings secret.

Here is Federalist No. 49 where James Madison warned against having a convention to address breaches of the federal Constitution.

HERE is James Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville warning of the terrible dangers of an Article V convention. Madison NEVER supported the convention method of amending our Constitution.

Here is Federalist No. 85 (last para) where Alexander Hamilton said he “dreads” the prospect of another convention because the enemies of the Constitution want to get rid of it.

  • [Note: Our Constitution was ratified by the 9th State on June 21, 1788. Federalist No. 85 was published during mid-August 1788. The anti-federalists wanted to get rid of our Constitution. They argued that our Constitution isn’t perfect – so we should have another convention so we can get a new Constitution. They also argued that Amendments to our Constitution are too hard to get it. Those were the arguments which Hamilton addressed in Federalist No. 85.]

Here is Justice Arthur Goldberg’s op ed in The Miami Herald of Sep. 14, 1986 where he warns us that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda would almost certainly be unenforceable.”

HERE is Chief Justice Warren Burger’s June 22, 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…”

Justice Scalia said on April 17, 2014 at the 1:06 mark of this video

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

  • [The convention lobby quotes Law Professor Scalia from 1979, when he didn’t object to an Article V convention. By 2014, the wiser Justice Scalia had changed his mind & now “feared” a convention.]

HERE are additional letters and articles by eminent Jurists and scholars to the same effect.

HERE is where James Madison said our Constitution depends on the people having the “virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom” to office. [see text at 223]

Since the States created the federal government, they are the final authority on whether their creature has violated the constitutional compact the States made with each other. Those are our Framers’ words you can find them HERE and HERE.

HERE is the Pew Report: At the “select a state” box, you can find out what percentage of your State government’s revenue was from federal funds.

For a model Rescission Resolution, go HERE and then scroll down to “Take Action”.

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

April 19, 2017 - Posted by | Amendments to the Constitution, Article V, Article V Convention, constitutional convention, Convention of States project, Council on Foreign Relations, Declaration of Independence, Delegates to a convention can't be controlled, Faithful Delegate Laws, Federal Convention of 1787, George W. Bush, Mark Levin | , , , , , , , , , ,


  1. I saw this from a FB friend, when I looked it up it was from (already suspicious) any it was about a proposed 28th Amendment which reads: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States”. Your thoughts?


    Comment by Timothy Martin | July 22, 2017 | Reply

  2. […] Framers NEVER said the purpose of amendments is to restrain the feds if they usurp powers – useful […]


    Pingback by An Article V Convention is Like Pouring Gasoline on An Already Burning Fire (Part One) - Capitol Hill Outsider - Taking on the Establishment | May 26, 2017 | Reply

  3. […] Publius Huldah’s Blog by Publius Huldah […]


    Pingback by Exposing the real agenda behind the push for an Article V convention - Watcher of Weasels | April 24, 2017 | Reply

  4. I am still studying and reading through all this, I sent it to everyone else and got plenty of reactions.




    Comment by SFH | April 22, 2017 | Reply

    • Tell them to come here with their questions. We must wake up Americans now. Otherwise, we will most likely be pushed into the North American Union – that’s what the political establishment of both parties has been putting in place for several decades. All that’s left to do is formalize it with a new Constitution for us.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 22, 2017 | Reply

  5. Hilarious piece of irony here. GA passes Article V application for a convention to limit the power of an Article V convention. Yeah, let’s see how that works out. Better to go through Congress.


    Comment by Kim Blackman | April 21, 2017 | Reply

    • Yes it is. Georgia is among those States which need to get much better legislators. The ones there seem willing to pass anything – as long as it’s a truly horrible idea.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 21, 2017 | Reply

  6. Even if everything goes according to the COS Project’s plans, with only Mark Levin’s proposed “liberty” amendments being ratified, it would still introduce so much confusion into the system that a new constitution would soon be needed to straighten the mess out.

    And it will probably be argued at the convention that the changes needed are unworkable with our present Constitution, as it was by the delegates of 1787, thus justifying to our new delegates the rewriting of a perfectly good Constitution.

    With our Constitution already declaring what the COS Project is complaining about unconstitutional, their call for a Constitutional Convention is defeatism. It’s a whole sale surrender of Original Intent to the Darwinian living constitution interpretation of “progressives”. It gives further legitimacy to an otherwise erroneous and subversive principle, to which the COS Projects has the audacity to assert won’t happen with their amendments. In short, Article V does nothing to fix the underlying problems.


    Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | April 21, 2017 | Reply

    • Well, Mark Levin’s proposed Amendments legalize powers the federal government has already usurped; delegates new powers to the federal government; and strips States of their existing “natural right” of nullification of unconstitutional acts of the federal government. His amendments are an abomination. Only a People who have no idea what our Constitution presently says; who have no comprehension of our Founding Principles; and who don’t think for themselves; could think they are a good idea.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 21, 2017 | Reply

  7. Finding attention limited for many who need to know what’s happening, a useful observation is that no Convention need become a run-away. Art V itself is designed as a run-away with two expired prohibitions (one of which is already moot by the 16th Amend.) and Senate equal suffrage which can be given up at anytime by consent. Using the foregoing alone shocks many into agreement that a Convention for proposing amendments is a really bad idea. By adding the observation that Art. V is comprised of but one sentence, tying each phrase into the whole also makes an empact.
    I have already shared this with KrisAnne and J. C. Hall in person as well as by telephone with Christian in Research with the JBS.


    Comment by Ivan Berry | April 20, 2017 | Reply

  8. Excellent citations. Better than anything the charlatans have compiled to justify their pusch to rid us of our liberty, our rights, and our progenies’ futures. I have posted this widely as well. Thank you to PH!


    Comment by Jim Greaves | April 20, 2017 | Reply

    • The charlatans never prove a word they say. It’s hard to believe the ring leaders are lawyers! Maybe they never actually tried any cases or made any arguments in Court.

      I litigated in the Era before Judges had laptops at the Bench – so when I cited a case as precedent, Judges automatically held out their hands: Lawyers were expected to provide the Judge with a copy of the case right then and there – which copy was highlighted to show the Judge that the case actually said what the lawyer said it said.

      And when we asserted FACTS, we had to actually put on EVIDENCE to PROVE the Fact.

      Yet these convention lobby charlatans make all sorts of claims, never prove a single one of them, yet some people believe them. Americans better wise up and stop being so “trusting”. Charlatans and Demagogues thrive on trusting gullible – and ignorant – people.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 20, 2017 | Reply

      • One of those charlatans claims to have “presented before SCOTUS”. I guess it was a traffic ticket, because where the entire Constitution would be under discussion, it is likely SCOTUS would not have taken the case. 😉


        Comment by Jim Greaves | April 20, 2017 | Reply

      • Also, remember “The Farmer’s Daughter” famous line, which elicited a huge cheer and approbation from a mob: “Fish for SALE!”


        Comment by Jim Greaves | April 20, 2017 | Reply

  9. Those in control of the nation (i.e. The Deep State) will control the process. Farris, Levin, and Meckler may initiate this dangerous process and then will be brushed aside. Farris of all them should be ashamed of himself. Never send your precious children to Patrick Henry College. Patrick Henry would roll over in his grave if he saw the actions of Michael Farris.


    Comment by Robert Heiney | April 20, 2017 | Reply

  10. Do you trust State Legislators?

    On December 7, 1787, Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution of the United States, and has since promoted itself as “The First State.”

    “Sharia in the State of Delaware”
    Understanding the Threat – John Guandolo – April 13, 2017


    Comment by Merry Christmas | April 20, 2017 | Reply

  11. PH,

    This is beautiful!

    Posting everywhere, and sending in emails to our House committee. This is so timely!

    Btw, I stopped in at Gonzales’ office yesterday (with 10 students and 3 parents in-tow). I had over 100 pages of documentation (paper copies) and reviewed the contents with him briefly, then handed to him. His demeanor was defensive, which irritated me further. I told him – we send this information in emails and we then hear Rep Gonzales ask for verification of our testimonies in the committee hearing. I said if emails don’t get read, maybe 2 pounds of paper documents will. I’m now resorting to tweeting to them … @larrygonzales52 / @drewdarby4Tx / Will continue to share more tomorrow.

    Hope you are doing well.

    …Barbara Harless

    North Texas Citizens’ Lobby Connecting the Citizens of North Texas with their elected officials


    Comment by Barbara Harless | April 19, 2017 | Reply

  12. It would seem that most of the problems we have are due to NOT following our current Constitution and not holding our elected officials accountable through elections and grand jury indictments for misbehavior.

    How is creating another, going to solve that problem?

    What reason do we have to think that the people who are ignoring their oaths of office and ignoring our current Constitution (the most likely people to attend an Article V Convention) should be trusted with an Article V Convention?

    As for me, until we show that we can faithfully follow our current Constitution (with the provision/exception of repealing amendments 16 and 17 – if they were ever legally ratified), I would view an Article V Convention as an act of civil war and would not respect the outcome.


    Comment by FiddlerBob | April 19, 2017 | Reply

    • True. If a new Constitution is imposed at an Article V convention (and it will be if an Article V convention is called by Congress), then manly men and womenly women will have to decide whether they will fight to the death or whether they will submit to the New World Order.

      I ask God to please not let it be that Americans are to Stupid to be free.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 19, 2017 | Reply

      • Everyone should be fully aware that if a new constitution is created, the supreme Law of the Land will no longer be on the side of the People and their Natural Rights. Any acts of defiance against the new legally centralized federal government’s authority will brand them criminals, rebels, insurgents, terrorists etc… They will be fighting an uphill battle that history shows to be a lost cause.

        “…Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. When the people once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their right of defending the limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.” ~John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams (1775)

        Each time we shirk our duties as freemen in defending our Constitution from all threats, both foreign and domestic, it brings us closer to the tragedy Winston Churchill famously outlined during World War II.

        “Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”


        Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | April 21, 2017 | Reply

        • Your words are true. But there are people in this Country who put blind faith in charlatans and believe every lie they tell. And these blind ones REFUSE to listen to the Truth. They stop up their own eyes and ears.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 21, 2017 | Reply

        • Our corrupt governments have already branded many of us all those things! Who cares? They’re the criminals! Regarding the COS and any “new Constitution”: I didn’t take an Oath to any “new Constitution”. I DID take an OATH to “support, protect and defend” the current Constitution. I agree with FiddlerBob’s post above: What good is a New Constitution which we the people won’t “support, protect and defend” until such time as we enforce our current Constitution. Our Public Fool’s Indoctrination System has succeeded greatly in producing a populace of submissive, conforming, voluntary slaves affectionately known as “the American Sheeple.” Ignorance, Apathy and Cowardice is the greatest threat to America today.


          Comment by Diamondback | May 2, 2017 | Reply

          • Re: “Our corrupt governments have already branded many of us all those things! Who cares?”

            You missed my entire point. There is a big difference between the opinions of the elites and those opinions having the full force of law behind it. The Constitution, even with its bad amendments, is still on the side of liberty. To allow it to be opened up for complete revision would be akin to cutting our noses off to spite our face and kicking a powerful ally to the curb.

            My argument was towards those who think we have nothing to lose at this point in time by having a Constitutional Convention; along with those who believe that if it does go wrong, we can have another revolution to set things right. There are many factions foaming at the mouth for one reason or another for a Con Con. Some are secessionists who see it as an opportunity to motivate the States to secede from the Union when things go bad.

            All those “solutions” will only exacerbate the problems, not fix them. They may afford some temporary relief, but it will have set in motion something far more terrible…

            “The generation which commences a revolution rarely complete it. Habituated from their infancy to passive submission of body and mind to their kings and priests, they are not qualified when called on to think and provide for themselves; and their inexperience, their ignorance and bigotry make them instruments often in the hands of the Bonapartes and Iturbides to defeat their own rights and purposes.” ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams (1823)

            “The Constitution has enemies, secret and professed; but they cannot disguise the fact, that it secures us many benefits. These enemies are unlike in character, but they act for the same purpose. Some of them are enthusiasts, self-sufficient and head-strong. They fancy that they can strike out for themselves a better path, than that laid down for them… Heat, in the intellectual constitution of these enthusiasts, is distributed just exactly as it should be; they have hot heads and cold hearts. They are rash, reckless, and fierce for change, and with no affection for the existing institutions of their country.

            Other enemies there are, more cool, and with more calculation. These have a deeper and more fixed and dangerous purpose…

            There are those in the country, who profess, in their own words, even to hate the Constitution…” ~Daniel Webster, Address to the New York Historical Society (1852)


            Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | May 4, 2017

          • And nothing ever changes – our enemies of today also HATE our Constitution. It’s just that now, some of our enemies are posturing as “friends”. And as the COS bots give daily proof, such deceptive tactics work!

            Daniel Webster was probably one of the best (artistically speaking) writers ever.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | May 4, 2017

  13. Reblogged this on Starvin Larry.


    Comment by gamegetterII | April 19, 2017 | Reply

  14. Where is the declaration of both right and duty of parents to control their children, including locking them up in a cell or in chains, depriving them of privileges, putting them on bread and water rations, and administering beatings as necessary to teach them manners?

    Sure, a parent’s first approach should consist of love and reason, but that must also include curtailment of liberties and other forms of discipline before releasing a child into society.


    Comment by bobhurt | April 19, 2017 | Reply

    • What?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 19, 2017 | Reply

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: