Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Article V

The Development of Article V, U.S. Constitution, at the Federal Convention of 1787

By Publius Huldah

Hyperlinks to Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 are provided.  Use them!  See for yourself what went on at the Convention!

After July 4, 1776, we operated under our first Constitution, The Articles of ConfederationArticle XIII required approval of amendments by the Continental Congress and by every State.

Summary of the Dispute at the Convention of 1787

The dispute at the convention of 1787 was whether Congress (under the second Constitution then being drafted by the Delegates) should have any power over amendments:

  • Mr. Randolph & George Mason wanted The People to be able to make amendments without the assent of Congress (May 29, June 11) and in a manner which did not depend on Congress (Sep 15, 1787).
  • Several questioned the propriety of making Congress’ assent to amendments unnecessary (June 11, 1787).
  • Gov. Morris, Hamilton, & Madison thought Congress ought to be able to propose amendments (Aug 30, Sep 10, 1787).

Some delegates spoke of a “convention” in connection with amendments:

  • With Congress calling the convention (Aug 6) whenever Congress pleased (Aug 30, 1787).
  • Mr. Gerry worried about States obtaining a convention and binding the Union to innovations which subverted State Constitutions (Sep 10, 1787).
  • Mr. Hamilton said Congress should have power to call a convention to propose amendments to correct defects which would probably appear in the Constitution (Sep 10, 1787).
  • Mr. Madison remarked on the vagueness of the terms, “call a Convention for the purpose”: “How was a Convention to be formed? – by what rule decide? – what the force of its acts?” (Sep 10); and “difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, &c., which in constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided” (Sep 15, 1787).

The final version of Article V provides two methods of proposing amendments to the Constitution:  Congress either:

  • Proposes the amendments; or
  • “Calls” a convention when the Legislatures of 2/3 of the States apply for it.  Since Art. I, §8, last clause, delegates to Congress the power to make the laws to carry out its power to “call” the convention, Congress has power to organize and set up the convention and determine how delegates will be chosen and even who they are.

So the dispute was won by those who thought Congress should be involved in the amendment process.

   From James Madison’s Journal (Farrand’s edition) at the Library of Congress

May 29, 1787 (p 20, vol. 1): The work of the Convention begins.  Mr. Randolph presented 15 resolutions to “open the great subject of their mission”.  Randolph’s 13th resolution was:

“Resolved, that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the Articles of Union, whensoever it shall seem necessary; and that the assent of the National Legislature ought not to be required thereto” (p 22).

 

June 5, 1787 (p 121, vol. 1): Randolph’s 13th resolution is taken up:

  • Mr. Pinckney “doubted the propriety or necessity of it.” (p 121)
  • Mr. Gerry favored it, pointing out that the “novelty and difficulty” of what they were doing required periodical revision; that the prospect of such a revision would give intermediate stability to the government; etc. (p 122)

The matter was postponed for further consideration. (p 122)

 

June 11, 1787 (p 202, vol. 1): Randolph’s 13th resolution for amending the national Constitution, hereafter, without consent of the national Legislature, was considered:

  • Several members did not see the necessity of the Resolution, nor the propriety of making the consent of the National Legislature unnecessary. (p 202)
  • Geo. Mason said the Constitution now being formed “will certainly be defective”, as the Articles of Confederation have been found 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.”  Mr. Randolph agreed. (p 202-203)

The words, “without requiring the consent of the National Legislature,” were postponed.  The other provision in the clause passed unanimously. (p 203)

 

June 13, 1787  (p 231, vol.1): The Committee of the Whole presented a revised set of resolutions.  Randolph’s 13th resolution was renumbered as the 17th resolution, and now read:

“Resolved that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the Articles of Union, whensoever it shall seem necessary.”

 

July 23, 1787 (p 87, vol. 2):  The 17th resolution was agreed to unanimously.

 

August 6, 1787 (p 188, vol. 2): The Report of the Committee of Detail presented a draft Constitution.  Article 19 read:

“On the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the States in the Union, for an amendment of this Constitution, the Legislature of the United States shall call a convention for that purpose”.

 

August 30, 1787 (p 467, vol. 2):  Article 19 was taken up.  Mr. Gov. Morris suggested that “the Legislature should be left at liberty to call a Convention whenever they pleased”.  The Article was agreed to unanimously.

 

September 10, 1787 (p 557, vol. 2):  Mr. Gerry moved to reconsider Art.19.

  • Mr. Gerry said the Constitution they were writing would be paramount to the State Constitutions.  It follows from Art.19 that two-thirds of the States “may obtain a convention, a majority of which can bind the Union to innovations that may subvert the State Constitutions altogether”.
  • Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion for reconsideration, but for a different reason than Mr. Gerry.  An easy mode should be established for supplying defects which will probably appear in the new system.  The mode proposed was not adequate.  State Legislatures will apply for amendments to increase their own powers.  The National Legislature will be the first to perceive, and will be most sensible to, the necessity of amendments; and ought also to be empowered, whenever two-thirds of each branch [of the Congress] should concur, to call a Convention.  There is no danger in giving this power, as the people would finally decide. (p 558)
  • Mr. Madison remarked on the vagueness of the terms, “call a Convention for the purpose”, as sufficient reason for reconsidering the article.  “How was a Convention to be formed? – by what rule decide? – what the force of its acts?” (p 558)

On the motion of Mr. Gerry to reconsider:  9 States “Yes”; 1 State “No”; and 1 State divided.

Mr. Sherman moved to add the following to Article 19:

“or the Legislature [Congress] may propose amendments to the several States for their approbation; but no amendments shall be binding until consented to by the several States.”

Mr. Wilson moved to insert: “three-fourths of” before “the several States”; this was agreed to unanimously.

Mr. Madison then moved  (p 559) to postpone consideration of the above amended proposition, in order to take up the following proposed revision:

“The Legislature of the United States, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part thereof, when the same shall have been ratified by three-fourths, at least, of the Legislatures of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Legislature of the United States.”

Mr. Hamilton seconded Mr. Madison’s motion.

Mr. Rutledge could not agree to give a power by which the articles relating to slaves might be altered by non-slave States.  So this was added to Mr. Madison’s proposal:

“provided that no amendments, which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the fourth and fifth sections of the seventh article.”

On Madison’s proposed revision, as amended by Rutledge: 9 States “Yes”; 1 State “No”; and 1 State divided.

 

September 12, 1787  (p 602, vol. 2): The Committee of Revision presented a new draft of the Constitution.  Article 19 was renumbered as Article V:

  “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, shall propose amendments to this Constitution; which shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part thereof, when the same shall have been ratified by three-fourths at least of the Legislatures of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one of the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress:  Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the __ and __ sections of the ___ article”

 

September 15, 1787 (p 629, vol. 2):  Article V was taken up.

  • Mr. Sherman expressed fears that three-fourths of the States might be brought to do things fatal to other States; and wanted more protection for slave States (p 629).
  • Geo. Mason said the plan of amending the Constitution was “exceptionable and dangerous”.  As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind, would ever be obtained by the people, if the government should become oppressive.

Mr. Gov. Morris and Mr. Gerry moved to amend the Article so as to require a Convention on application of two-thirds of the States.

  • Mr. Madison did not see why Congress would not be as much bound to propose amendments applied for by two-thirds of the States, as to call a Convention on the like application.  He saw no objection, however, against providing for a Convention for the purpose of amendments, except only that difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, &c., which in constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided.

The motion of Gov. Morris and Mr. Gerry was agreed to unanimously (p 630).

On the question to agree to the Constitution, as amended, all the States voted “yes”.  The Constitution was ordered to be engrossed, and the house adjourned (p 633).

 

September 17, 1787 (p 648, vol. 2):  The Constitution was signed, as finally amended.  Article V reads:

   “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 1808, 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.”

 (p 648-649).
All members of the Convention signed except for Mr. Randolph, Mr.  George Mason, and Mr. Gerry

Revised Dec. 2013; Dec. 2014; April 2015; April 2016.

 

 

 

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

74 Comments »

  1. […] James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted. He kept a daily Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is. […]

    Like

    Pingback by What the Framers really said about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution | Building Blocks for Liberty | June 8, 2022 | Reply

  2. […] James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted. He kept a daily Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is. […]

    Like

    Pingback by What the Framers Really Said About the Purpose of Amendments to our Constitution | Building Blocks for Liberty | March 20, 2022 | Reply

  3. Hello, sorry this is in the wrong thread. Where can I find information on what can be done to those who violate their oath to the Constitution? I’m a civil servant and see a disheartening amount of fellow civil servants who lack understanding or care that they are not honoring the oath to support and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

    Like

    Comment by PB | October 21, 2021 | Reply

    • PB, the Law has disappeared in this Country. We are no longer under the Rule of Law – those holding the power do whatever they want. Rioters who loot & burn & destroy private property; and those who commit crimes against Humanity (Fauci, Biden, et al) are not being prosecuted. But Moms who speak at public School Board meetings against CRT or mask mandates are being investigated by the federal Dept. of “Justice”. Patriots who committed no crime but who attended the Jan 6 rally for Trump are being persecuted.

      The Oath of office is meaningless – like the marriage vows. There never was provision for criminal prosecution of those who “violate their oath of office” – the remedy was to fire them, or impeach them & remove them from office; or not re-elect them. But Congress is so morally degenerate that they will not impeach & remove civil officers who violate their Oath; civil service laws protect civil “servants” from being fired; and our elections are so dishonest that we no longer have the power to throw out office Legislators who violate their Oath.

      But we have a Remedy: Resistance. Resistance. Resistance. Do not submit to Tyranny. The good news is that we are finally seeing some spine among the American People – they are resisting!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 21, 2021 | Reply

      • Thank you for your great service to our country PH! I expected such an answer unfortunately. I am seeing success with public surety bonds. When a sworn public authority acts outside the authority bestowed then a claim against the bond seems to be working in many instances. Might you have any insight on this process?

        Like

        Comment by PB | March 24, 2022 | Reply

        • I haven’t heard of people making claims against a public authority’s “public surety bond”. If you have any specific documentation on this, please send it to me.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2022 | Reply

          • Check out bonds for the win. I went so far as to file a FOIA and got the bond but here in Virginia the bond is a bit different. Our Governor Youngkin ended the mask mandates while I was figuring my next move so I kinda just stopped pursuing it. I need to follow through so I know the specifics.

            Like

            Comment by PB | March 26, 2022 | Reply

            • bond?

              Like

              Comment by Publius Huldah | April 2, 2022 | Reply

  4. […] James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted.  He kept a daily Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is. […]

    Like

    Pingback by What The Framers Really Said About The Purpose Of Amendments To Our Constitution – World Truth | August 25, 2019 | Reply

  5. […] James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted. He kept a daily Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is. […]

    Like

    Pingback by What the Framers really said about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution – Building Blocks for Liberty | March 25, 2019 | Reply

  6. […] James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted.  He kept a daily Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is. […]

    Like

    Pingback by News With Views | What The Framers Really Said About The Purpose Of Amendments To Our Constitution | November 3, 2018 | Reply

  7. […] Article V […]

    Like

    Pingback by Honest discourse about Article V convention needed « Publius-Huldah's Blog | June 24, 2018 | Reply

  8. […] he presents no proof – and can’t because no one at the federal convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) said such a thing. As proved in The George Mason […]

    Like

    Pingback by interesting Column about the article V debate- Publius Huldah | June 14, 2018 | Reply

  9. […] he presents no proof – and can’t because no one at the federal convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) said such a thing.  As proved in The George Mason […]

    Like

    Pingback by News With Views | Honest Discourse About Article V Convention Needed | May 19, 2018 | Reply

  10. […] he presents no proof – and can’t because no one at the federal convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) said such a thing. As proved in The George Mason […]

    Like

    Pingback by A GREAT Letter From Constitutional Scholar Publius Huldah on the Dangers of the Article V Convention of States! | Virginia Right! | May 12, 2018 | Reply

  11. […] he presents no proof – and can’t because no one at the federal convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) said such a thing.  As proved in The George Mason […]

    Like

    Pingback by Honest discourse about Article V convention needed | NoisyRoom.net | May 12, 2018 | Reply

  12. […] a Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up—here it is. Madison’s Journal shows what the Framers really said about the purpose of […]

    Like

    Pingback by The George Mason Fabrication - Fairfax Free Citizen | June 19, 2017 | Reply

  13. […] Article V […]

    Like

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

  14. […] Pinckney said on September 15, […]

    Like

    Pingback by Article V Convention: How “Individuals of Insidious Views” Are Stealing Our Constitution  | Topcat1957's Blog | February 22, 2017 | Reply

  15. […] called by Congress and pursuant to Article V is but a creature of the state legislatures, the only convention Article V authorizes States to convene is one within their respective border to either ratify or reject an amendment proposed by Congress […]

    Like

    Pingback by Thorner: Mark Levin’s case for an Article V Convention challenged | Nancy J. Thorner | October 22, 2016 | Reply

  16. […] and dishonest claim that the purpose of amendments is to control the federal government is based on Mason’s & Randolph’s comments you can find here. Theirs was the minority view; Art. V provides for Congress’ involvement in both methods of […]

    Like

    Pingback by Propaganda And The Conspiracy Against Our Constitution | Grumpy Opinions | August 23, 2015 | Reply

  17. […] Mr. Pinckney said on September 15, 1787: […]

    Like

    Pingback by Article V Convention: How “Individuals of Insidious Views” Are Stealing Our Constitution | Grumpy Opinions | August 23, 2015 | Reply

  18. […] Publius Huldah’s Blog […]

    Like

    Pingback by COS Debate – Wilson Co Tea Party of Lebanon TN – June 22, 2015 | Tennessee Watchman | July 10, 2015 | Reply

  19. I think there is a parallel between what will happen if parental rights come under federal control with how marriage has now come under federal control since the Supreme Court ruling. Watch in shock and horror as it unfolds! I hope people will finally open their eyes and stop supporting the PRA. Our government is anti-family, or at least the current administration is. We can’t expect marriage or parental rights to be protected by this administration. We need to stop giving them more power!

    Like

    Comment by Teri of NC (washbear) | July 4, 2015 | Reply

    • Oh yes, they enemy wants the federal government controlling FAMILY LAW. But People are so short-sighted…. if it sounds good, they are all for it.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 5, 2015 | Reply

  20. How can nullification be used to reform the federal government?

    Like

    Comment by Rob John | May 21, 2015 | Reply

    • 1. Please follow thru on my response to your questions about Scalia’s comment about a convention. You are not a honey bee buzzing from plant to plant – leaving one before you finish it to move on to another. FOCUS and think things through to the end.

      2. Read this and tell me why it can’t reform the federal government. I ask you to show me why it won’t work b/c it seems self-evident to me that it would work. And it IS – as you will have to admit I proved – one of the two remedies our Framers actually advised us to use. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/nullification-the-original-right-of-self-defense/

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 21, 2015 | Reply

      • Nullification as a concept is fine and I think it’s worth pursuing. However, it has a couple problems. 1) it’s insufficient for correcting defects to the constitution, which you yourself insist is the reason for amending the constitution in the first place. 2) using the 10th amendment as a mechanism would grant to every citizen the power to ignore federal law, and that’s crazy.

        Like

        Comment by Wonderboywonderings | May 13, 2018 | Reply

        • I suggest your comment reveals that you don’t understand the concept of nullification! Summarize in a few sentences what James Madison & Thomas Jefferson said about it.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 13, 2018 | Reply

      • Can you explain how using the 10th Amendment as a “mechanism” (to what?) would “grant” every citizen to ignore federal law? I don’t find that the 10th Amendment will ever result in lawlessness, but that unchecked federal gov’t leads to unlawlessness.

        Like

        Comment by freemarketrules | February 1, 2021 | Reply

        • No, I can’t because it isn’t true – on several levels.

          All the 10th Amendment does is to reiterate that the federal gov’t has ONLY the Delegated powers – that all other powers [except those listed at Article I, Sec. 10] are reserved to the States or the People.

          It doesn’t grant any “rights” to the States or the People. It can’t – because the Declaration of Independence recognizes that “Rights” come from the Creator God. With the US Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE created the federal gov’t, and we delegated to our “creature” specific enumerated powers – only those and nothing more. We certainly didn’t give ourselves any “rights” in the Constitution – the Constitution isn’t about our Rights – it’s about the specific powers which WE THE PEOPLE delegated to the fed gov’t.

          Our Framers advised resistance – nullification – as the remedy to usurpations by the fed gov’t. Yes, unchecked federal gov’t leads to lawlessness – and the people have that “original right of self-defense” to resist all such usurpations.

          It is a serious mistake to claim that the “right” to resistance – nullification – arises from the 10th Amdt. Instead, it arises from that natural right of self-defense given to us by our Creator. Alexander Hamilton was particularly insistent on this point! Do learn the arguments in this paper – and look up the original source documents so that you can be confident that it is True and then you will be able to speak boldly on this. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/nullification-the-original-right-of-self-defense/

          Another reason it is such a serious mistake to say that the right of resistance arises from the 10th Amendment is this: Article III, Sec.2, clause 1, lists the enumerated categories of cases federal courts are allowed to hear. One of the categories is “cases arising under this Constitution”. The 10th Amendment “arises under this Constitution”. So if one ignorantly asserts that the right of nullification arises from the 10th Amendment, he is saying that the federal courts have judicial power over nullification!

          Do you see how people who write of matters they don’t understand shoot themselves {and everyone else in the Country} in the foot? They make mistakes like this because (they don’t understand federal litigation procedures) AND because they don’t read original source documents to see what our Framers wrote. If you read the original source documents linked in my nullification paper, you will see how they stressed that nullification is a NATURAL RIGHT – it is most manifestly NOT a “constitutional right”.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2021 | Reply

  21. That’s the problem, you won’t engage in a civil conversation. You have assumed your opinions to be infallible.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Rob John | May 16, 2015 | Reply

    • Two Questions:
      1. Does anyone in COS ever tell the Truth? Who? When? Where?
      2. Does anyone in COS have an IQ above 50? Who? When? Where?

      All the COS stuff is geared to morons!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 16, 2015 | Reply

      • How can you expect anyone to agree with you or see your point of view when constantly attack other peoples character? Honestly you are behaving like liberals do. Very arrogant, and your fear of a runaway convention blinds you. You don’t engage those who disagree, you attack them. I fear a runaway government more than I do a runaway cos. If one follows your logic then we are already doomed, with or without a convention.

        Like

        Comment by Rob John | May 19, 2015 | Reply

        • Rob John! Calm down. Can you address the substance of my comment? I’ll repeat it:

          Of course, the convention of 1787 wasn’t a “runaway”. The 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence recognizes the inherent right of a People to throw off their “Form of Government” and institute a new one. THAT is what our Framers did at the Convention of 1787. They threw off our first Constitution (The Articles of Confederation), and wrote a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification (Our Constitution of 1787).

          It’s that simple.

          And it can be done again. That is the COS plan – to “re-write” our Constitution. They have said so!

          Address that first.

          Then we can discuss whether COS followers unthinkingly repeat what they have been told. And if they do so, is it not my duty to point it out?

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 19, 2015 | Reply

      • Do you ever not bend interpretations yourself. After reading many of your articles, I regularly trip over errors in your own logic along with various of your interpretations which you frame as facts.

        That’s not to say you’re not doing great work. In many cases you are. But I find that you’re also a little enamored of your own echo chamber at times.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Wonderboywonderings | May 13, 2018 | Reply

        • errors in Logic? Oh, do show us. Point them out!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 13, 2018 | Reply

  22. […] place with 1/3 vote –Publius-Huldah’s Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]

    Like

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results | askmarion | May 4, 2015 | Reply

  23. […] The Development of Article V, U.S. Constitution, at the Federal Convention of 1787 […]

    Like

    Pingback by Convention of States | Lincoln Report | April 29, 2015 | Reply

  24. […] place with 1/3 vote -Publius-Huldah’s Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]

    Like

    Pingback by The Razor » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken: April 24, 2015 | April 29, 2015 | Reply

  25. […] Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]

    Like

    Pingback by The Razor » Blog Archive » Council Submissions: April 22, 2015 | April 29, 2015 | Reply

  26. […] many questions about Article V conventions; and James Madison raised them on two occasions at the Federal Convention of 1787: […]

    Like

    Pingback by | Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments ! | April 26, 2015 | Reply

  27. […] place with 1/3 vote -Publius-Huldah’s Blog – Article Vsubmitted by The Right […]

    Like

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council winners for April 24, 2015 | April 25, 2015 | Reply

  28. […] place with 1/3 vote – Publius-Huldah’s Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]

    Like

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results – 04/24/15 | April 24, 2015 | Reply

  29. […] place with 1/3 vote -Publius-Huldah’s Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]

    Like

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results — 04/24/15 | therightplanet.com | April 24, 2015 | Reply

  30. […] place with 1/3 vote –Publius-Huldah’s Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]

    Like

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results | Nice Deb | April 24, 2015 | Reply

  31. […] place with 1/3 vote -Publius-Huldah’s Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]

    Like

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results | April 24, 2015 | Reply

  32. […] Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]

    Like

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Watcher’s Council Nominations – On The Trail Edition | April 22, 2015 | Reply

  33. […] </br> <li><b>Publius-Huldah’s Blog </b> – <a href=”https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/article-v/&#8221; target=”_blank”>Article V </a> submitted by <b>The Right […]

    Like

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – On The Trail Edition | Nice Deb | April 22, 2015 | Reply

  34. […] Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]

    Like

    Pingback by Waqtcher’s Council Nominations – On The Trail Edition | Virginia Right! | April 22, 2015 | Reply

  35. […] Article V […]

    Like

    Pingback by Why was the Convention Method put into Article V? « Publius-Huldah's Blog | February 22, 2015 | Reply

  36. […] Article V link […]

    Like

    Pingback by Reason why Convention method was put into Article V | NCRenegade | February 5, 2015 | Reply

  37. Once again, very good information. Thanks for taking the time to put this together for our benefit. By the way, Merry Christmas PH.

    Like

    Comment by Mike F | December 16, 2014 | Reply

    • Thank you, Mike and Merry Christmas to you as well!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 17, 2014 | Reply

  38. […] • Mr. Pinckney said on September 15, 1787: […]

    Like

    Pingback by Why We Must Stop an “Article V Convention of States” « Cherilyn Eagar | March 6, 2014 | Reply

  39. […] Pinckney said on September 15, […]

    Like

    Pingback by Article V Convention: How 'Individuals of Insidious Views' Are Stealing Our Constitution | American Clarion | February 20, 2014 | Reply

  40. […] This little chart illustrates our Constitution & Declaration and the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. For 100 years, we elected politicians who ignore them. We don’t understand that the amendments proposed by Michael Farris, Mark Levin, Randy Barnett, & Nick Dranias increase the powers of the federal government because we don’t know the list of enumerated powers in the Constitution. You could remedy that:  Print out the chart and read the Constitution & Declaration! […]

    Like

    Pingback by Publius Huldah Warns Art. V Convention to Steal Constitution | USA NEWS FIRST | February 19, 2014 | Reply

  41. […] Article V […]

    Like

    Pingback by Propaganda And The Conspiracy against Our Constitution « Publius-Huldah's Blog | January 28, 2014 | Reply

  42. […] and dishonest claim that the purpose of amendments is to control the federal government is based on Mason’s & Randolph’s comments you can find here. Theirs was the minority view; Art. V provides for Congress’ involvement in both methods of […]

    Like

    Pingback by Bridge for sale…cheap! | Scanned Retina Resource | January 25, 2014 | Reply

  43. […] anyway it wants, and to appoint whomsoever it wishes as delegates. 6 Now look at this:  The chart on Article V shows that James Madison, Father of our Constitution, remarked on the vagueness of the term, […]

    Like

    Pingback by The “Convention of States” Scam, the War over the Constitution, and how the States Sold the Reserved Pwers to the Feds. by Publius Huldah | CenLA Patriots | December 22, 2013 | Reply


Leave a comment