Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Why States Can’t Prevent a Runaway Convention

By Publius Huldah

The danger of an Article V convention (which made James Madison “tremble”, caused Alexander Hamiltondread”, and Chief Justice John Jay to say that another convention would impose an extravagant risque”) is this: the delegates to the convention can run away: instead of proposing amendments to our existing Constitution, they can write a completely new Constitution with a new – and easier – mode of ratification. 1

The convention lobby implicitly acknowledges this danger when they say State Legislatures should pass “unfaithful delegate” laws to control delegates. 2

Accordingly, Wyoming passed a delegate law earlier this year which purports to empower the WY Legislature to “immediately recall” any delegate who makes an “unauthorized vote” at the convention, and to charge with a felony any delegate who fails to follow the WY Legislature’s instructions on what he may do at the convention. The Texas delegate law purports to make “invalid” any “unauthorized vote” at the convention, and to empower the TX Legislature to recall any delegate who violates his instructions. But Tennessee takes the cake with its delegate law: Not only does the TN law purport to “void” votes cast at the convention by TN delegates which are outside the instructions or limits placed on the delegates by the TN Legislature – and then to prosecute such delegates for a felony; the TN law also asserts that if all TN delegates vote or “attempt to vote” outside the scope of the instructions or limits, TN’s previously filed applications for an Article V convention are to be treated as “having no effect at all”. Other States have passed similar laws.

Such laws are contrary to our Founding Principles and are based on false assumptions. Accordingly, they are unenforceable and ineffective.

1. Self-evident Rights and the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence is the Fundamental Act of our Founding.3 It declares that all men are created equal; our rights are bestowed by God; our rights are unalienable; and the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us.

The Declaration is not “law” in the ordinary sense – it is higher than law, for it sets forth The Divine Standard which a Constitution – and the laws made pursuant to the Constitution must meet.

It also declares that a People have the self-evident right to throw off their government and set up a new one. With that Principle firmly in mind, let’s look at our first amendments convention; and then, at State unfaithful delegate laws.

2. The federal convention of 1787

After our Revolution, we operated under our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation. But there were defects in the Articles, so on Feb. 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention to be held in Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. The States also drafted instructions which purported to restrict delegates to proposing amendments.

But the delegates ignored their instructions and wrote a new Constitution [the one we now have]. In Federalist No. 40 (15th para), Madison invoked the Declaration of Independence and claimed, as justification for what they did,

“…the transcendent and precious right of the people to ‘abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness,’…”

Yet State unfaithful delegate laws claim a power to divest The Representatives of the People – and to criminally prosecute them for exercising – what the Fundamental Act of our Founding declares is a “self-evident” right”!

3. And what if the delegates make their proceedings secret?

The State Legislators who vote for unfaithful delegate laws assume they will be able to know what is going on every minute of every day of the convention.

But Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) shows that on May 29, 1787, the delegates voted to make their proceedings secret.

If delegates to a convention today vote to make the proceedings secret, the States won’t know what is going on – and can’t stop it. And if delegates vote by secret ballot, the States would NEVER know who did what.

You might think that with cell phones & cameras, it’s impossible to have a secret meeting. But the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which “induces” State Legislators to push the COS application for an Article V convention, is experienced in conducting secret meetings with State Legislators. WATCH this 6.5 minute video of a Georgia TV crew which attempted to get into a meeting held at a Georgia hotel of ALEC and Georgia Legislators.

ALEC, which supports the COS application for an Article V convention, is funded by the Koch Brothers and other mega-corporations. The Koch Brothers spend vast sums on State politicians (e.g., Texas), to get their support for the COS application. Do the Kochs want an Article V convention so they can get a new Constitution which transforms us from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union? And if there is a convention, will armed guards keep the press out? If delegates have been bought by the Kochs, will they tweet & text to the world what they are up to behind closed doors?

4. State Legislatures are “creatures” of their State Constitutions, and have no “competent authority” to control The Representatives of The People at an Article V convention

 Americans have forgotten a Principle which is the basis of free government: That political power originates with The People. 4 The People create governments by means of constitutions. Since a government is the “creature” of its constitution, it can’t be superior to its Creator, The People.

This is why at the federal convention of 1787, where our present federal Constitution was drafted, our Framers understood that only The People were competent to ratify the new Constitution. George Mason said on July 23, 1787,

“…The [State] Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and cannot be greater than their creators…”

Keeping that Principle firmly in mind, let’s look at Article V, US Constitution.

It provides that when two thirds of the State Legislatures (“mere creatures”) apply for it, Congress is to call a convention. At that point, it is out of the State Legislatures’ hands – the bell has tolled, and State Legislatures can’t un-ring it. Congress “calls” the convention (sets it up); but when it assembles, the delegates, as Sovereign Representatives of the People, are not answerable to State Legislatures (which are “mere creatures” of the State Constitution) or to Congress (which is a “mere creature” of the federal Constitution). The delegates actually have the power to eliminate the federal and state governments – and that is precisely what the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America does.

Delegates to a federal convention called by the federal Congress, to perform the federal function of altering or replacing our federal Constitution, are performing a federal function, not a State function. The delegates don’t represent any government, federal or state. 5 They are supposed to represent The People; but in our corrupt time, they are more likely to represent the Koch Brothers (because they have the cash).

Dust off your copy of the federal Constitution we already have, read it and defend it. It filled all Europe with wonder and veneration”. If you don’t do this, we will lose it.

Endnotes:

1 The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America creates a totalitarian dictatorship. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. It is ratified by a national referendum [national popular vote] (Art. XII, §1). Other proposed Constitutions are also waiting in the wings for a convention.

2 The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) claims their model delegate bill “will eliminate the possibility of a ‘runaway convention’ the reason most often cited by scholars for their opposition to an Article V Convention.”

3 Dr. Alan Keyes spoke of this on the radio some years ago; and I knew he had just handed me the Key to understanding our Constitution.

4 See Federalist No. 22, last para (Hamilton).

5 The term, “convention of states”, is a misnomer which gives the false impression that States control the convention. In Rob Natelson’s speech on Sep. 16, 2010,  he said he will no longer call it a “constitutional convention”, but will henceforth say, “convention of states” (pg. 2).

This Chart illustrates who has the power to do what at an Article V convention.

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

September 27, 2017 - Posted by | ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, Article V Convention, Delegates to a convention can't be controlled, Faithful Delegate Laws, runaway convention, unfaithful delegate laws | , , , , , , ,

29 Comments »

  1. PH, has this reached you?  My syst

    Like

    Comment by Carol Boggs | October 15, 2017 | Reply

    • I saw it now, Carol. Do you want to re-send and send your message?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 15, 2017 | Reply

  2. […] Source: Why States Can’t Prevent a Runaway Convention […]

    Like

    Pingback by Why States Can’t Prevent a Runaway Convention | The All American Blog | September 29, 2017 | Reply

  3. Reblogged this on stepman2001 and commented:
    Want to know why we do not need or want an Article V convention? Publius brings the light again.

    Like

    Comment by Edward Durfee | September 29, 2017 | Reply

  4. If I understand this correctly, the Article V could in fact ratify a new Constitution that would supersede our Constitution. Which in effect would stop the 3/4 states rule?

    Like

    Comment by Edward Durfee | September 29, 2017 | Reply

    • The 3/4 States rules applies only to ratifying Amendments to our existing Constitution.

      But if the Delegates to an Article V convention write an entirely new Constitution, the new Constitution will have it’s own new mode of ratification.

      Remember, the federal convention of 1787 was called by the Continental Congress “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation” (AOC). And Article XIII of the AOC provided that Amendments would be ratified by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States.

      But the new Constitution drafted at the “amendments” convention of 1787 provided at Article VII thereof that it would be ratified by only 9 of the States.

      So if there is an Art. V convention today, the Delegates can impose a new Constitution which imposes it own new mode of ratification. E.g., the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a national referendum.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 29, 2017 | Reply

  5. Reblogged this on Bob's Opinion and commented:
    Watch out for the Koch Brothers, Soros, and the (Under the Radar) push for a Convention of States.

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by R.S. HELMS | September 28, 2017 | Reply

  6. I agree completely with this analysis.

    Like

    Comment by Benny White | September 28, 2017 | Reply

    • Please let your State legislators know!

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 28, 2017 | Reply

  7. […] More… […]

    Like

    Pingback by Why States Can’t Prevent a Runaway Convention? – Southern Nation News | September 28, 2017 | Reply

  8. WHY??
    have an article V convention when those in POWER DON’T FOLLOW OUR PRESENT CONSTITUTION NOW.
    and all those so called REPRESENTATIVES WOULD DO IS STEAL MORE OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF WE THE PEOPLE.
    what NEEDS to happen, is the states meet and FIND AWAY TO UNDO ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND AGENCIES FORMED SINCE 1865.
    AMERICA BECAME A DAMN COOPERATION IN 1874, WE NEED TO GET BACK TO OUR ORDINAL CONSTITUTION AND IT’S TRUE MEANING.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Jim Marine #4 (@357mag22) | September 28, 2017 | Reply

  9. Reblogged this on Starvin Larry.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by gamegetterII | September 27, 2017 | Reply

  10. If an Article V Convention proposed an amendment that allowed the Constitution to be amended by majority popular vote, the amendment would have to be ratified by 38 states before it became effective. The requirement for ratification by 38 States prevents a runaway convention from altering the Constitution.

    The Convention in 1787 that wrote the US Constitution was convened under the Articles of Confederation. The US Constitution was ratified by all 13 States and by the Continental Congress as required by the Articles of Confederation.

    The statement in the US Constitution that it became effective after 9 States approved it was not binding under the Articles of Confederation. Rather is was a signal that 9 States that approved the new Constitution were willing to break away from the original 13 member Confederation and set up a new political entity without the 4 holdouts. Amending the Constitution is a political act and the threat to exclude the holdouts was effective in convincing them to ratify.

    Any attempt to impose a different Constitution, without ratification by 38 States, is more like a revolution and has no relationship to an Article V Convention. If 30 States ratified a new Constitution approved by a runaway convention, and the 30 States decided to leave the United States and start a new country with 30 States, then the result would most likely be the break up of the country or civil war. It would be a political act independent of Article V of the US Constitution.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Stephen Duval | September 27, 2017 | Reply

    • You are woefully and dangerously confused. [I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not a paid hack.]

      Let’s look at facts:

      1. Yes, if there is an Article V convention and the delegates propose an Amendment to our existing Constitution which changes the mode of ratification of new Amendments to a national referendum, then that Amendment would have to be ratified by three fourths of the States before it became effective.

      2. But if the delegates propose a new Constitution – such as the Constitution for the Newstates of America – which provides that it is to be ratified by a national referendum, then the New Constitution is ratified by a national referendum.

      3. You are also confused about history of the ratification of our Constitution of 1787: It provides, at Article VII thereof, that it will be ratified when 9 States approve it. Our Constitution of 1787 was ratified on June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire – the 9th state – ratified it.

      But if the delegates to the federal convention of 1787 had proposed Amendments to the Articles of Confederation – as they had been instructed to do – then any such amendments would have to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States before such amendments became effective.

      4. If there is an Article V convention today, and a new Constitution is proposed [as it is certain to be because the BIG MONEY WANTS TO MOVE THE UNITED STATES INTO THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION], then the new Constitution will set forth its own new mode of ratification.

      Since whoever counts the votes decides the outcome, I expect we will see that the new Constitution proposed at an Art. V convention will have as its mode of ratification, a national referendum.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 27, 2017 | Reply

  11. I am not sure wether i was right or wrong, but I told union guy who supported a con convention that it was just like a union contract when you open the negotiations there is no constitution, and who did he trust in that situation. he immediately understood

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by Dave Polewski | September 27, 2017 | Reply

    • Excellent! We must explain things using the terminology people can understand. And you did that!

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 27, 2017 | Reply

  12. Amendment X (states the 1789 Constitution delegates powers, and certain powers are reserved to the people). There are two powers written in the 1789 Constitution that are reserved to the people; (1 – the ballot box, and (2 – the jury box. …… ** the ballot box gives citizens of a “District” the power to choose their District’s Representative for the House in Congress every two years **

    There is only one Right mentioned in the 1789 Constitution, and that Right applies only to Authors and Inventors (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8). Citizen’s Rights have no power to force government compliance (Article V).

    Like

    Comment by allandouglas | September 27, 2017 | Reply

    • I may not be understanding your comment. But:

      Our Constitution is referred to as the Constitution of 1787;
      The Declaration of Independence declares that our Rights come from the Creator God; so they don’t come from the Constitution; and
      All powers which are not exclusively delegated to the federal gov’t by our Constitution are reserved to the States or The People.

      This one page chart lays it all out: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chart-showing-federal-structure-3-1-part-a2.pdf

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 27, 2017 | Reply

      • Yes, the Constitution was written in 1787 and then ratified in 1789 to become the supreme Law of the Land (Article VI, Clause 2).

        Also, the ballot box eliminates the need of the cartridge box to alter government forevermore, the Founders did not have the ballot box to hire or fire their Lawmaker King.

        Like

        Comment by allandouglas | September 27, 2017 | Reply

        • The word Right is used only once in the 1789 Constitution; Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”

          Like

          Comment by allandouglas | September 27, 2017 | Reply

          • That’s because rights come from God – not the Constitution.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 27, 2017

        • Our Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 – when the 9th state (New Hampshire) ratified it.

          Yes, James Madison said our system depends on The People having the virtue and intelligence to elect men of virtue and wisdom to office.

          The new government created by that Constitution commenced operation during the Spring of 1789.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 27, 2017 | Reply

  13. https://www.infowars.com/bill-oreilly-stuns-on-hannity-leftists-dont-want-white-people-calling-the-shots/

    The can’t seem to get the Article V con con so I think they are trying a new angle to destroy the constitution. Jim Sallee

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Jim SALLEE | September 27, 2017 | Reply

    • For the last 50-60 years, it has always been the Left which is pushing for an Article V convention (A5C) – they want a new Constitution which sets up a totalitarian dictatorship.

      We KNOW they are Leftists b/c their proposed new Constitutions and proposed Amendments all vastly increase the powers of government over us.

      The present push for an A5C began some 50-60 years ago with the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America. It sets up a totalitarian dictatorship under which we will be disarmed, the States dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national gov’t. It’s ratified by a national referendum.

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

      Mark Levin presents himself as a “conservative”, but his proposed Amendments vastly increase the powers of the federal gov’t over us.

      Michael Farris presents himself as a “conservative” and a “christian”, but his parental rights amendment actually delegates power over children to the federal and state governments.

      And since Levin & Farris aren’t stupid men, how can they fail to be aware that if there is an A5C, a new Constitution will be imposed on us? An A5C has always been – from the very beginning – about getting a new Constitution. See my paper, “The George Mason Fabrication”.

      The Left is in an all-out war against us and they want a new Constitution.

      I suggest that people like Levin & Farris are the demagogues of which Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 1 (5th para). Since they are lawyers, I hold them accountable for understanding the import of their proposed amendments & for understanding the fearsome risks of an A5C. The danger is so well established that I can’t understand how any informed and honest person could fail to see it.

      Americans better start judging people by their fruits and not by their words or there will be hell to pay.

      I have links to some of the various proposed Amendments and new Constitutions here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/exposing-the-real-agenda-behind-the-push-for-an-article-v-convention/

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 27, 2017 | Reply

      • In the operation, or function, of the federal government U.S. citizen’s only constitutional choice to force elected Officials compliance to the Oath of Office (Article VI, Clause 3) is the ballot box to elect or not reelect incumbent Representatives of the House in Congress every two years. Reference; Article I, Section 2, Clause 1, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,”

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by allandouglas | September 28, 2017 | Reply

        • Voting is one of the remedies. But there is more: The US citizens in the State governments must STOP TAKING FEDERAL FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

          All State and local government officials take the Oath (Article VI, clause 3) to support the Constitution. That Oath REQUIRES them to refuse to go along with unconstitutional acts of the federal government.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 28, 2017 | Reply

          • The problem is enforcement, or lack of enforcement, of the Oath. The Oath does not, cannot, enforce itself.

            The States do not elect Members of the House in Congress, and never have. A law does not, cannot, prevent crime. Likewise, the Constitution does not, cannot, prevent Official’s usurpation of power. The House, in Congress, has the power to stop “continued” usurpation.

            Like

            Comment by allandouglas | September 28, 2017

          • Right, the Citizens are supposed to elect to office people who know the Constitution and will honor their Oath by refusing to go along with unconstitutional acts.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 28, 2017


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: