Mark Meckler’s “COS” Board Member has drafted new Constitution which imposes gun control

By Publius Huldah (Joanna Martin, J.D.)

Our Framers understood that a free State cannot exist without an armed and trained populace (i.e., the Militia). Accordingly, they wrote a Constitution which prohibits the federal and State governments from infringing the natural right of the People to keep and bear arms.

Under our Constitution, the federal government has no authority to make any laws whatsoever over the Country at Large restricting the rights of the People to keep and bear arms. Gun control is not an enumerated power. Furthermore, the Second Amendment expressly forbids the federal government from infringing the right of the People (the Militia) to keep and bear arms.

The States are also prohibited from infringing the right of the People to keep and bear arms by Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution. Those two clauses provide for the Militia of the Several States; and implicitly prohibit the States from making any laws which would interfere with the arming and training of the Militiamen in their States. ¹

Applications for Congress to call a convention under Article V, US Constitution

But various groups, such as Mark Meckler’s Convention of “States” (COS) organizations, have been lobbying State Legislators to pass applications asking Congress to call an Article V Convention.

Whether or not State Legislatures should ask Congress to call an Article V Convention is one of the most important – and contentious – issues of our time. The Delegates to such a convention, as Sovereign Representatives of the People, have the power to throw off the Constitution we have and propose a new Constitution, with a new and easier mode of ratification, which would create a new government. ²

The Pennsylvania Senators Roundtable Discussion

On November 8, 2021, several Pennsylvania Senators conducted a roundtable discussion about whether they should pass Mark Meckler’s “COS” application (SR 152) for Congress to call an Article V convention. Mark Meckler and his allies were present in support of SR 152. Firearms Owners Against Crime was present in opposition to SR 152. Gun Owners of America was there also. ³

Much of what Meckler said at the roundtable is not true. But this paper focuses on his comments ridiculing his opponents’ concerns that, if there is an Article V convention, we could lose our existing Right to keep and bear arms.

Meckler showed up at the roundtable decked out in gun garb; and, after dropping names to show his connections with gun rights organizations, proceeded throughout the discussion to preen his commitment to “the Second Amendment”. He ridiculed the warnings that if there is an Article V Convention, Delegates would have the power to impose a new Constitution which, among other horrors, strips us of our Right to keep and bear arms without infringement.

Meckler said that Chuck Cooper, a litigator for the NRA, is on COS’s Legal Advisory Board and has written an open letter saying, “…it’s a ridiculous argument that there could be a runaway convention and we could lose our Second Amendment.” [13:31 – 13:57]

A bit later on, Meckler said:

“…Professor Robbie George at Princeton who is considered the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America is on our Legal Advisory Board. … [43:02 – 43:25]

So who is Professor Robbie George? And who says he is the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America?

Robbie George (Robert P. George) was on the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project. The National Constitution Center is a quasi-official branch of the federal government.

Robbie George and three others have drafted a new Constitution which severely restricts the Right of the People to keep and bear arms! His new Constitution says at Article I, Sec. 12, clause 7:

“Neither the States nor the United State [sic] shall make or enforce any law infringing the right to keep and bear arms of the sort ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes, provided that States, and the United States in places subject to its general regulatory authority, may enact and enforce reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others.”

So Robbie George’s new Constitution:

• authorizes the state and federal governments to ban the possession of all arms unless they are “ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes”. Who will decide what arms are “ordinarily” used for self-defense or recreation? The governments will decide.

• authorizes the state governments and the federal government (in those places subject to its “general regulatory authority”), to enact and enforce “reasonable regulations” on the bearing of those arms they permit us to have. What’s a “reasonable” regulation? The governments will decide; and,

• authorizes the state and federal governments to strip us of our right to keep even those arms “ordinarily used for self-defense”, if someone in the government (presumably a judge) decides you are a danger to yourself or others.

We live in a time when Christians who read the Bible; People who read the Constitution; and Moms who speak out at School Board meetings against pornography in the schools, mask mandates, or the teaching of critical race theory, are labeled “domestic terrorists”.  Should “domestic terrorists” be allowed to keep and bear arms? Of course not- they are dangerous!

At the roundtable, John Velleco of Gun Owners of America said:

“The questions that we’re dealing with on this is how will this [Meckler’s “COS” application SR 152] impact the Second Amendment? Because that’s, as an organization, that’s all we care about. … So we need to determine if this is something that seriously could impact in a negative way the Second Amendment, then we are compelled to engage 100%. … our bigger issues in Pennsylvania are passing constitutional carry.” [1:07:05 – 1:07:51]

Yet even though Meckler’s Board Member Robbie George had already participated in the drafting of a new Constitution which imposes gun control; and thereby would rescind the Second Amendment, Meckler responded:

“And I will tell you there are 5 Million people in this country … that are signed up for convention of states. Right here, there are 90,000 in this state. 90,000!

The question was asked, will this help pass constitutional carry? The answer is hell yes, it will! Because right now, our activists are very angry with gun rights organizations in this state. And they’ll not support anything that these gun organizations are doing, because they’re now sworn enemies on Article V. … But I will say, on Kim Stolfer’s organization, they should be working with these organizations. Every one of those 90,000 should be signed up with these organizations and members of these organizations fighting for everything they [the gun organizations] want.” [1:21:21 – 1:22:05]

So Meckler, who postures as a “Second Amendment guy” [13:31-13:57] , threatened that unless Kim Stolfer supports Meckler’s SR 152 application for a convention, Mecker’s alleged 90,000 supporters in Pennsylvania ⁴ will not support anything Kim Stolfer’s gun rights organization does!

Look behind the Curtain

This push for an Article V Convention is the most vicious bait and switch ever perpetrated on the American People. It’s all about getting a new Constitution under the pretext of getting amendments. ⁵ If Congress calls an Article V convention, Robbie George’s proposed Constitution, or another just as tyrannical, can be proposed. ⁶ And since any new Constitution will have its own new mode of ratification (such as a national referendum), it’s sure to be approved.

The solution to our political and economic problems is to read and enforce the Constitution we already have. States and local governments and individual Citizens can take a giant step forward by not taking federal funds to participate in unconstitutional federal programs.

And rescind your States’ existing applications for an Article V convention! It doesn’t matter what the ostensible purpose of a convention is, as set forth in a State’s applications. Once the Convention assembles, the Delegates can do whatever they want including approving the Constitution Robbie George participated in drafting, or another Constitution which will also legalize the tyranny which is taking over our Country.

We are to fight tyranny by resisting it; not by legalizing it.

Endnotes:

¹ With the Militia Act of 1792, Congress required all able-bodied male Citizens in the Country (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and under 45 to buy a rifle, bayonet, ammo & ammo pouch, and report to their local Militia Unit for training. States may not lawfully do anything to interfere with this constitutional grant of power to Congress.

² This is shown in these flyers:

• How to get a new Constitution under the pretext of proposing amendments;

• The US Constitution & Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report show that COS’s assurances that State Legislatures will control a convention are false and reckless. So what is Meckler’s response? To snicker and belittle the CRS! [1:14:35 – 1:14:42]; and

• What the Convention Lobby isn’t telling you about our Declaration of Independence.

³ These are two large gun rights organizations. John Velleco and Val Finnell appeared for GOA; Kim Stolfer of Pennsylvania appeared for Firearms Owners Against Crime.

⁴ It should be enlightening to ask Meckler to provide documentation of his claim to have 90,000 supporters in Pennsylvania. Legislators in other States have looked behind the curtain and found “COS” claims of support to be false: See Phony Petitions and Polls.

⁵ James Madison expressly warned of this stratagem: See this flyer at footnote 2.

⁶ Altogether, the National Constitution Center has three proposed new Constitutions. All of them transfer massive new powers to the new federal government.

Additional proposed Constitutions are discussed here.  One of them, the Constitution for the Newstates of America, was produced some 60 years ago [and factions have been pushing for an Article V convention ever since]. Under the Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Article I, Part B., Sec. 8 provides that the People are to be disarmed. Article XII, Sec. 1, provides for ratification by a national referendum – so whoever controls the voting machines will determine the outcome.

STOP an Article V Convention – read the proposed new Constitutions which our enemies want to impose

 

Click to access exhibits-to-presentations-in-south-carolina-during-november-2021..pdf

When the feds violate the Constitution, should we blame the Constitution?

By Publius Huldah

In Rob Natelson’s paper [link], “The Solution is a Convention of the States”, he makes claims about what our Framers said is the purpose of amendments to our Constitution which are not true. He also gives false assurances about the safety of a convention called by Congress under Article V of the Constitution.

At the outset, we should note that the title of Natelson’s paper incorporates a stratagem which creates the false belief that the States control the convention. The belief is false because the convention provided for by Art. V of the Constitution is a federal convention called by the federal government to perform the federal function of addressing our federal Constitution. It is not a state function; accordingly, the term, “convention of States”, does not appear in Article V.  So the “Convention of States” organizations (COS), of which Natelson is “senior advisor”, renamed the convention provided for in Article V as a “convention of the States”; ¹ and re-defined it as “a convention controlled by State Legislatures”.

Now let’s examine various other claims on which COS builds its case.

1. The fabricated George Mason quote

COS claims that our Framers gave us the convention method of getting amendments so that when the federal government “violate[s] its constitutional limitations”, we can get a convention to “make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.” Or, in plain English, when the feds violate the Constitution, the solution is a convention to amend the Constitution.

But our Framers didn’t say that. The falsity and absurdity of COS’s claim is exposed here. What our Framers actually said is that the purpose of amendments is to correct defects in the Constitution. And they recognized that the purpose of a convention is to get another Constitution. James Madison warned that those who secretly want to get rid of our Constitution would push for a convention under the pretext of getting amendments.

2. Natelson’s claims re using amendments to “overrule bad Supreme Court decisions” & “restrain federal power”

Natelson admits that the Framers said we can use amendments to correct defects in the Constitution; but then muddles up what the Framers actually said with what they never said, thereby seemingly legitimizing his misleading claim that the Framers envisioned that we could use amendments to “overrule bad Supreme Court decisions” and “restrain federal power”.

As an example of a “bad” Supreme Court decision, Natelson claims that “[i]n early 1795, the States ratified the 11^th Amendment to reverse an overreaching Supreme Court decision”.

The decision he is referring to is Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) [link]; and what he says about it isn’t true. What Chisholm actually stands for is this: Our Constitution originally delegated to federal courts the power to hear cases “between a State and Citizens of another State” (Art. III, §2, cl.1). But when a Citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia, States were outraged! Georgia objected. In Chisholm, the Supreme Court decided the case in accordance with the Constitution and held that Chisholm could maintain his suit.

But the States didn’t want Citizens of other States suing them. So the States ratified the 11^th Amendment which took away from the federal courts the constitutional authority to hear cases filed by a Citizen against another State. So the 11^th Amendment illustrates what our Framers actually said is the purpose of amendments: to fix defects in the Constitution.

Natelson also claims that our Framers said we could use amendments to “restrain federal power” when the federal government “exceeded and abused its powers”.

Again, Natelson muddles up the true and the false when he fails to distinguish between usurpations of undelegated powers and abuses of delegated powers.

No Framer said that amendments could be used to restrain usurpations of powers not delegated. And in Federalist No. 49 (last para) James Madison says the opposite. He warns against another convention and says, “occasional appeals to the people [a convention] would be neither a proper nor an effectual provision” for restraining the federal government within its legal powers.

But when the federal government abuses a delegated power, an amendment could be appropriate. Here’s an example: the Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional since tariffs are authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 1. But it was abusive because it benefited infant industries in the Northeast at the expense of the Southern States. So what’s the remedy for such abuse of delegated power? Article I, §8, cl. 1 could be amended to say that Congress may impose tariffs only to raise revenue to carry out the enumerated powers; and may not impose tariffs in order to benefit one section of the Country at the expense of other sections.

3. Natelson’s proposed “corrective reforms” to the Constitution

Natelson says he wants a convention to get a balanced budget amendment (BBA); to curb “undemocratic and unfair” regulations; to reverse “liberal-activist Supreme Court decisions”; to impose term limits; and get other amendments “to restrain federal power”.

But as anyone who has read it knows, our Constitution already limits the federal government to a handful of enumerated powers. The powers are listed here. The categories of cases federal courts are authorized to hear are listed at Art. III, §2, clause 1. All the problems of which COS and Natelson complain are the result of violations by the federal government of the existing constitutional limitations on their powers – and the States’ acquiesce in such violations!

Balanced Budget Amendment: Our Constitution already limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. But for 100 years, everyone has ignored the existing limits on federal spending. A BBA would replace the existing enumerated powers limitation on federal spending and create a new constitutional authority to spend on whatever the President or Congress put into the budget! A BBA thus legalizes spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers, and transforms the federal government into one which has constitutional authority over whatever Congress decides to spend money on.

Federal Regulations: Article I, §1 vests all lawmaking powers in Congress. So all regulations issued by federal executive agencies which purport to apply to the Country at Large are unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1; and as outside the scope of the enumerated powers. An amendment such as Natelson proposes is a grant of constitutional power to federal executive agencies to make Laws.

Supreme Court Opinions: This shows why Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. This shows why the opinions banning Christian speech in the public square are unconstitutional. The remedy our Framers advised for such usurpations is impeachment and removal from the Bench (Federalist No. 81, 8^th para), and nullification by the States of unconstitutional opinions [link].

Natelson cannot produce any writing from a Framer which says that when the Supreme Court violates the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution. Our Framers were not silly men. And what would such an amendment as Natelson proposes say? That federal judges must obey the Constitution? Article VI already requires that. Does Natelson propose amendments which list the subjects on which federal courts may not act? But Art. III, §2, cl. 1 already lists the kinds of cases they may hear. But we ignore those existing limitations.

Term limits amendment: If we learned anything from the last election, it should be that we will not in the foreseeable future have an honest federal election. With H.R.1, Congress is likely to attempt to “legalize” the unconstitutional shenanigans which enabled the theft of the last election. So your vote won’t matter!

But even if we had honest federal elections, consider this: As you decrease the powers of elected members of Congress by making them transient beings – you increase the powers of the “deep state”. With term limits, elected members of Congress would become like train cars passing in the night – the power would be solidified in the nameless, faceless, un-elected bureaucrats who infest the Executive Branch.

Anyone who analyzes the amendments proposed by COS and their allies can see that their amendments increase the powers of the federal government by delegating powers already usurped, granting new powers, or stripping States of their existing powers. See: ‘Mark Levin’s “Liberty” Amendments: Legalizing Tyranny’ [link]; ‘COS Project’s “simulated convention” dog and pony show and what they did there’ [link], & ‘The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster’ [link].

4. Amendments to “prevent federal abuse” can backfire!

When amendments correct defects in the Constitution, they are clearly a good thing. The 12^th & 13^th Amendments, like the 11^th Amendment, corrected defects in the Constitution. Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment extended Citizenship to the freed slaves and provided constitutional authority for the much needed federal Civil Rights Act of 1866.

But amendments added to prevent federal abuses backfired. In Federalist No. 84 (10^th para), Alexander Hamilton warned against adding a Bill of Rights to our Constitution. Under a Constitution of enumerated powers, the government may lawfully do only what the Constitution permits it to do. So

“…why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? … it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power...” [emphasis mine]

But Hamilton’s warnings were brushed aside.

Beginning in the 1920s, Justices on the Supreme Court – who were “disposed to usurp” – fabricated a doctrine under which they claimed that §1 of the 14^th Amendment “incorporated” various parts of the first 8 Amendments so that those Amendments restricted the States! This how the Supreme Court usurped power to dictate how the States must apply the Bill of Rights. As shown here (at 12. & endnote 4), this is the theory the Supreme Court used to ban Christian speech from the public schools and County courthouse lawns.

Throughout the years, the Supreme Court has extended its “incorporation doctrine” to dictate to the States how they must apply the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, and 8^th Amendments [link].

Furthermore: Amendments usher in implementing federal statutes and executive agency regulations – and judicial power over the subject of the Amendment becomes vested in the federal courts. Article III, §2, cl.1, says, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases … arising under this Constitution …”

Beware of what you ask for.

5. Natelson’s assurances that a convention would consist of “state delegations” sent “to propose pre-specified amendments” are false and reckless in the extreme ²

Natelson presents nothing to support his assurances. He can’t because his assurances are contradicted by the Constitution; and by the federal “amendments” convention of 1787, which is our sole historical precedent for a federal convention called by a Congress to address our federal Constitution.

Article V, US Constit., says:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem 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…” [italics added]

Article I, §8, last clause, US Constit., says Congress shall have the Power…

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” [italics added].

So Congress calls the convention and makes the laws necessary and proper to organize the convention.

The April 11, 2014 Report of the Congressional Research Service [link] shows that Congress recognizes that Article V grants to Congress exclusive authority to set up a convention:

“Second, While the Constitution is silent on the mechanics of an Article V convention, Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including (1) receiving, judging, and recording state applications;…(4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates…” (page 4).

So Congress has the power to receive and judge the applications; how to count the applications, which ones to count, whether to aggregate the different forms of applications, etc.

Nothing in the Constitution permits State Legislatures to dictate amendments to be considered. The convention is the deliberative body.

Nothing in the Constitution requires Congress to permit States to select Delegates. Congress – the same Congress which Natelson tells us is “abusive”, “mendacious” and “revels in its power”- has the power to select the Delegates. Congress may appoint themselves as Delegates. ³

6. The People have the power to take down and set up governments

The push for an Article V convention is a hoax. The Globalists who stole the Election want a new Constitution. They are using “getting amendments to rein in the federal government” as a pretext for getting a convention where a new Constitution is sure to be imposed. Madison expressly warned of this stratagem [link].

Our Declaration of Independence is part of the “Organic Law” of our Land. It recognizes that The People take down and create governments. When Delegates meet in convention to address a Constitution, they are the Sovereign Representatives of The People. They cannot be controlled by the “creatures” of Constitutions previously ratified by the People [link].

In Federalist No. 40 (15^th para) James Madison invoked the “transcendent and precious right” of a people to throw off one government and set up a new one as justification for the Delegates to the federal “amendments” convention of 1787 ignoring their instructions to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation, and instead writing a new Constitution with its own easier mode of ratification.

Accordingly, even if the “abusive” and “mendacious” Congress doesn’t “revel in its power” to appoint Delegates, but graciously permits States to select Delegates, State Legislatures have no competent authority to control Delegates at a convention called by Congress pursuant to Article V. The Delegates, as Sovereign Representatives of The People, have the power to eliminate the federal & state governments! ⁴

Heed the warning of the great statesman Daniel Webster:

“The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.” Daniel Webster, 4th of July Oration, 1802.

Endnotes:

¹ In a speech Natelson gave on Sep. 16, 2010 [link at top of p. 2], he said he would no longer call what he wanted a “constitutional convention”; but would ‘put our concepts on “reset” ’ and henceforth call it a “convention of states”.

² Noted conservative constitutional litigators and law professors William Olsen and Herb Titus have already recognized that COS’s “false assurances” are “reckless in the extreme” [link].

³ Page 40 of the CRS Report says it’s been recognized that there doesn’t seem to be any “… constitutional prohibition against [U.S.] Senators and Representatives serving as delegates to an Article V Convention..”

⁴ The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America [link] does just that. Article XII, §1 provides for ratification by a referendum called by the President. Do YOU trust the voting machines?

“Monumental” speech against an Article V convention

Here is the Exhibit List (with Links) to the Documents referenced in the speech [link].

Please note that I prove what I say.

The convention lobby is not telling the Truth. Click on the link to the Exhibit List, and read the flyers listed at the top. Those flyers address specific falsehoods the convention lobby is telling. The convention lobby has been getting away with the lies because people are generally gullible and believe whatever they are told, instead of using their own heads and looking at the original source documents.

The convention lobby never proves a thing they say. They can’t prove it because what they say is false – they make it up!      But it sounds so good … and thus gullible and unthinking people lap it up.  The convention lobby tells them that our  Constitution is the cause of all our problems, and thus allows Americans to indulge in one of their favorite sins:  blame-shifting.  The Truth is that our political problems are caused by our own failures to learn and enforce and obey the glorious Constitution we already have.  And State and local governments take every federal dollar they can get – never mind that the federal programs for which the federal money is sent into the States are unconstitutional.  The State and local governments literally sold our retained powers to the federal government.

We can’t solve our political problems until we are willing to be honest about the causes of those problems.

 

 

USMCA “Trade Agreement”, the North American Union, an Article V convention, and Red Flag Laws: Connecting the Dots

By Publius Huldah

The Globalists have long been in the process of setting up a dictatorial and totalitarian oligarchy over the United States. Now they are putting the last pieces in place. That is what is behind the pushes for the USMCA “Trade Agreement”, an Article V convention, and red-flag and other laws to disarm the American People: The Globalists want to move the United States into the North American Union.

USMCA “Trade Agreement”

The USMCA “Trade Agreement” is, in reality, a Transfer of Sovereignty Agreement. It provides for the economic and financial integration of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. In addition to putting the three countries under global regulation of a host of issues such as patents, environmental regulation, labor, immigration policy, prohibition of discriminatory practices respecting sexual preferences and “gender identity” in the workplaces; ¹ it puts the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in control of our economy and binds us to submit to an international monetary system which is to be administered and enforced (at least initially) by the IMF and which will replace our collapsing Federal Reserve system.²

Every word, clause, sentence, paragraph, page, chapter, and appendix of the USMCA “Trade Agreement” is in blatant violation of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

North American Union

The North American Union brings about the political integration of Canada, the United States, and Mexico.  The Task Force Report on Building a North American Community [link] sponsored by The Council on Foreign Relations provides for (among other horrors):

♦  increasing the “cooperation and interoperability among and between the law enforcement agencies and militaries.” The Report thus indicates that the plan is to combine the functions of law enforcement and the militaries of the three countries, so as to create a militarized police force consisting of Canadians, Mexicans, and Americans (pages 10-12).³

♦  a North American Advisory Council, with members appointed by Canada, the United States, and Mexico, to staggered multiyear terms to “provide a public voice for North America”; and a “North American Inter-Parliamentary Group” which will have bilateral meetings every other year; and a trinational interparliamentary group to meet in the alternating year (pages 31-32).

To merge the functions of our police and military and combine it with those of Canada and Mexico; ⁴ and to permit a Parliament to be set up over and above the United States, is altogether repugnant to our existing Constitution. But this is what the Globalists and the Political Elite of both parties want. Before they can impose it on us, they need to get a new Constitution for the United States.

An Article V Convention

And that’s the purpose of an Article V convention – to get a new constitution for this Country which legalizes the USMCA “Trade Agreement” and transforms the United States from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union.

But Americans don’t want another constitution, and they don’t want to be moved into the North American Union.

So!  Some of those pushing for an Article V convention, such as the “Convention of States Project” (COS) are marketing a convention to appeal to conservatives. COS and their allies such as Mark Levin claim to be for limited government and say they want a convention to get amendments to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”. Sadly, those who don’t know that our Constitution already limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to a tiny handful of enumerated powers [they are listed on this one page Chart] fall for the marketing.⁵

But others of those pushing for an Article V convention, and certainly those financing the push for a convention, ⁶ actually do intend to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”; and they intend to do it by transferring the powers our Constitution delegates to the federal government (plus the powers reserved to the States or the People) to the global government which they are setting up over us.⁷

This Flyer shows why Delegates to an Article V convention (called for the ostensible purpose of proposing amendments to our existing Constitution) have the right and power to ignore their instructions and impose a new Constitution which puts us under a completely new Form of government – such as the North American Union.

Red flag Laws & Gun Confiscation

When Americans finally see what has been done and how they have been deceived, they will be angry. That’s why they must be disarmed now. But all federal gun control laws for the Country at Large are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers granted to Congress; as in violation of Article I, §8, clauses 15 & 16; and as in violation of the Second Amendment. And any pretended State law which contradicts its State Constitution or which interferes with Congress’ power (granted by Art. I, §8, cl. 16) to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia”, is also unconstitutional [link].

Red flag laws also violate the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, §2; and the due process clauses of the 5^th Amendment and §1 of the 14^th Amendment. US Senator Marco Rubio’s (Fla.) malignant red flag law [link] appropriates a total of $100 Million to pay to States and Indian Tribes which pass the red flag legislation set forth in Rubio’s bill.

And Trump says respecting red flag laws, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” [link].

Stop the Globalists: Oppose the USMCA “Trade Agreement” and an Article V Convention

While the Trump Administration hammers the Globalists’ nails into our coffin, his trusting supporters censor criticism of the USMCA “Trade Agreement” – even though the Agreement is so long and incorporates so many other Agreements it is unlikely that any of them (including Trump) have read it.

And demagogues in the pay of Globalists have convinced constitutionally illiterate Americans that the solution to all our problems is to get an Article V convention.

Endnotes:

¹ Christian Gomez: USMCA and the Quest for a North American Union & What’s Really in the USMCA? Publius Huldah: The USMCA “Trade Agreement” violates our Constitution and sets up Global Government.

² Publius Huldah: So You Think Trump Wants To Get Rid Of The Fed?

³ Meanwhile, the UN is building a global military & police force. See “United Nations Peacekeeping” [link] and think of the ramifications of such a militarized global police force. Who will be able to resist?

⁴ Mexico’s culture is notoriously criminal. If we permit Globalists to get an Article V convention and a new Constitution which moves the United States into the North American Union, you can expect to see militarized Mexican police operating within our [former] Country. And soon, they will be wearing blue helmets.

⁵ It is possible that Mark Levin and the hirelings promoting a convention (such as Mark Meckler, ⁶ Tom Coburn [link], and Jim DeMint [link]) don’t know what the actual agenda is. And it is almost certain that COS’s constitutionally illiterate celebrity endorsers and lemmings don’t know. People who don’t know that our Constitution already limits the federal government to a tiny handful of enumerated powers, and that our problems are caused by ignoring the Constitution we have, are easily deceived by the ridiculous claim that we must amend our Constitution to make the federal government obey it.

Our Framers always understood that the purpose of an Article V Convention is to get a new Constitution [link]. This is why James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and four US Supreme Court Justices, among others, warned against it [link].

⁶ It is the Globalists, primarily the Kochs and George Soros, who are funding the push for an Article V convention. See, e.g.,

♦  Kochs Bankroll Move to Rewrite the Constitution [link].

♦  George Soros assault on U.S. Constitution [link]

♦  Mark Meckler is president of “Citizens for Self-Governance” which launched the “Convention of States Project”. This website discusses funding for Citizens for Self-Governance.

♦ Koch brothers from Conservapedia [link]

⁷ The transfer of power from our federal government to global government by means of the USMCA “Trade Agreement” is illustrated here.  Additional powers will be transferred by the new constitution which moves us into the North American Union.

 I oppose duckduckGo and their ads. I don’t consent to their ad being foisted on my page. So I don’t use them as a search engine.

Honest discourse about Article V convention needed

By Publius Huldah

Whether States should ask Congress to call a convention under Article V of our federal Constitution is one of the most important issues of our time. The Delegates to such a convention, as Sovereign Representatives of The People, have the power to throw off the Constitution we have and set up a new Constitution – with a new and easier mode of ratification – which creates a new government.¹

Americans need the Truth. But former law professor Rob Natelson’s recent article in The Hill is filled with ad hominems and misstatements. Natelson is legal advisor for pro-convention groups such as “Convention of States Project” (COSP).

“Poisoning the well” fallacy

Natelson characterizes those who oppose an Article V convention as “big government advocates”; “Washington insiders” who protect “judges and politicians who abuse their positions”; chanters of “talking points” from the “disinformation campaign” of the 1960s and early 1970s who have “no real expertise on the subject”; and, like those involved in “voter suppression efforts”, use “fear and disinformation” to discourage citizens from exercising their rights.

And while such tactics clearly resonate with COSP’s cheerleading squad; ² others immediately recognize the preemptive ad hominem attack known as the “poisoning the well” fallacy. That fallacy is committed when one primes the audience with adverse information or false allegations about the opponent, in an attempt to bolster his own claim or discount the credibility of the opponent.

Obviously, Natelson’s characterizations don’t constitute proof that he is right, and opponents are wrong.

Misrepresentations, omissions, and irrelevant “academic research”

1. Natelson asserts:

“Our founders designed this [Article V convention] as a way the people could fix the federal government if it became abusive or dysfunctional”.

But 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 Fabrication, the Delegates agreed that the purpose of amendments is to correct defects in the Constitution.

2. Natelson asserts:

“Any proposals must… be ratified by 38 states before they become law.”

That’s not true. While any amendments to our Constitution must be ratified by 38 States; our Declaration of Independence says it’s the “self-evident” Right of a People to abolish their government and set up a new one.

We invoked that Right in 1776 to throw off the British Monarchy.

In 1787, we invoked that Right to throw off our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation; and set up a new Constitution – the one we now have – which created a new government.

How did we get from our first Constitution to our second Constitution? There was a convention to propose amendments to our first Constitution!

The Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia:

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

But the Delegates ignored this limitation – they ignored the instructions from their States – and they wrote our second Constitution.

And in Federalist No. 40 (15^th para), James Madison invoked the “transcendent and precious right” of a People to throw off one government and set up a new one, as justification for what they did at the federal “amendments” convention of 1787.

We can’t stop that from happening at another convention. Furthermore, any new constitution will have its own mode of ratification. Whereas Art. 13 of the Articles of Confederation required amendments to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States; the new Constitution provided at Article VII that it would be ratified by 9 States.

Any proposed third constitution will have its own mode of ratification. The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a national referendum (Art. XII, §1). The States don’t ratify it – they are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

3. Natelson asserts that “academic research” shows:

“…how the convention is chosen and operates: It is a meeting of state representatives of a kind very common in U.S. history…The convention follows a pre-set agenda and attendees are subject to state legislative direction.”

Natelson’s “meetings” are irrelevant:  they weren’t constitutional conventions called to propose changes to our Constitution!

Furthermore, Natelson doesn’t mention the one relevant convention we have had in this Country: the federal “amendments” convention of 1787. That convention involved Delegates who ignored the instructions from their States ³ and from the Continental Congress, and resulted in a new Constitution with a new and easier mode of ratification. That is the only “meeting” which is relevant to the convention Congress has the power to call under Article V of our Constitution.

The “calling” of a convention by Congress is governed – not by Natelson’s “meetings” – but by provisions in our Constitution. Article V delegates to Congress the power to “call” a convention; and Article I, § 8, last clause, delegates to Congress the power to make laws “necessary and proper” to carry out that power.

As to the sovereign powers of Delegates, look to the Declaration of Independence, the federal “amendments” convention of 1787, and Federalist No. 40 – not to Natelson’s “meetings”.

4. In an earlier article, Georgetown law professor David Super cited Coleman v. Miller (1939) to show that as amending the Constitution is a “political question”; the courts are unlikely to intervene. ⁴

Natelson responded that Coleman is a 79-year old “minority opinion the courts have long repudiated”; but doesn’t show where the Supreme Court “repudiated” its opinion.

What Coleman shows is this: we can’t expect federal courts to make Delegates obey instructions. No one has power over Delegates – Delegates can take down one government and set up a new one.

Conclusion

Here’s an idea: Let’s all read our Declaration of Independence and Constitution; elect only people who have also read them, know what they say, and agree to obey; and then let’s downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers.

Endnotes:

¹ This is why James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, four Supreme Court Justices, and other luminaries warned against an Article V convention.

² At 5:25-7:35 mark. Archived HERE.

³ The States’ instructions are HERE at endnote 9.

⁴ Professor Super is right: When the Constitution delegates a power to one of the “political” branches [legislative or executive], federal courts [“judicial” branch] traditionally abstain from interfering and substituting their judgment for that of the branch to which the power was delegated.

The George Mason Fabrication

By Publius Huldah ¹

Those who have read Article I, §8, clauses 1-16 of our federal Constitution know that it delegates only a handful of powers (over the Country at large) to the federal government.

They also know that, for the last 100 years, the federal government has violated the Constitution by usurping thousands of powers not delegated.

So what do we do about it?

1. The silly answer of the convention lobby

The convention lobby says that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the solution is to amend the Constitution.

Now think about that: When a spouse violates the marriage vows, is the solution is to change the marriage vows? When people ignore speed limits, is the solution to change the speed limits? When people violate the Ten Commandments, is the solution to change the Ten Commandments?

Of course not! The solution is obedience: to the Constitution, the marriage vows, the speed limits, and God.

But the convention lobby’s argument proceeds from silliness to insidiousness: They say that only at an Article V convention can we get the amendments we need.

 2. Why do they want an Article V convention?

Even before the ink was dry on our Constitution of 1787, its enemies wanted to get rid of it:  At the federal convention where it was drafted, George Mason said on Aug. 31, 1787 that

“he would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands”; and if it weren’t changed to suit his views, he wanted another general convention. ²

Such demands for another convention persisted after our Constitution was ratified (by the ninth State) on June 21, 1788.  James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay addressed the demands and warned of the dangers of another convention [link].  They understood that a convention is the vehicle for getting a new Constitution.

Today’s enemies of our Constitution are spending vast sums of money to get an Article V convention  [e.g., link and link and link]. Their hirelings are propagandizing and pushing State Legislators all over our Country to apply to Congress to call a convention.

 

Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amendment:  Congress:

1. proposes amendments and sends them to the States for ratification; or
2. calls a convention if two thirds of the States apply for it.

Our existing 27 Amendments were obtained under the first method. We’ve never used the convention method because until recently, Americans understood the danger.

James Madison wrote in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville [link] that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and if there were another 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. ³

Alexander Hamilton “dreaded” the consequences of another convention because he knew that enemies of our Constitution wanted to get rid of it: Federalist No. 85. ⁴

The same goes for today. If there is an Article V convention, our enemies will have the opportunity to get rid of our existing Constitution and impose a new one. ⁵

Different factions already have new Constitutions in hand or in preparation in anticipation of an Article V convention. ⁶

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) seeks to bring about a political integration of Canada, the United States, and Mexico – a Parliament is to be set up over them, and their police and military forces are to be combined!  You can read the CFR’s Task Force Report on the North American Community at their website here.  Because setting up a Parliament over and above the United States and surrendering sovereignty over our military & law enforcement is altogether repugnant to our existing Constitution, they need a new Constitution which transforms the United States from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union. To get this new Constitution, they need an Article V convention.  See, e.g.,  USMCA ‘Trade Agreement,’ the North American Union, an Article V convention, and Red Flag Laws: Connecting the dots [here].

Now that you see what’s behind the push for a convention, let’s address the Convention Lobby’s Revisionist Account of the federal convention of 1787:

3. The Fake Quote

They claim that, at the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted, our Framers gave us the Article V convention as the “solution” to federal usurpations.  Michael Farris wrote: ⁷

“George Mason demanded that this provision [the convention method of proposing amendments] be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today. He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.”

But Mason didn’t say that. Nor did any other delegates say that or anything to that effect. They weren’t silly men.

4. Our Framers said the purpose of amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution 

James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787, and kept 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 amendments:

♦Elbridge Gerry said on June 5, 1787, the “novelty & difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision”.

♦ Under the Articles of Confederation (Art. XIII) [link], amendments had to be approved by Congress and all of the States.  On June 11, 1787 the Delegates discussed whether the new Constitution should also require Congress’ approval of amendments.  George 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 … It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent …The opportunity for such an abuse, may be the fault of the Constitution [a defect] calling for amendmt.” [boldface mine]

So Mason’s concern was that Congress might not agree to amendments needed to fix defects.  So he didn’t think the new Constitution should require Congress’ approval of amendments.

♦Alexander Hamilton said on Sep. 10, 1787 amendments remedy defects in the Constitution.

Other primary source writings of the time show:

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

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

♦If “… the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates …” (Washington’s Farewell Address, page 19) ⁸

That’s what they really said.

5.  The discussions on how Amendments should be proposed

Now let’s look at the additional words of George Mason’s which the convention lobby has contorted and taken out of context in an attempt to justify their absurd and ruinous claim.

An issue at the convention of 1787 was the manner in which amendments to the new Constitution would be proposed.

Madison wanted Congress to propose all amendments, either on their own initiative or at the request of two thirds of the States.  On Sep. 10, 1787, he proposed this wording for Article V:

“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 …”

Mason objected to Madison’s proposed wording.  On Sep. 15, 1787, Mason said,

“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, as he verily believed would be the case.”

Now remember! Mason agreed with the other Delegates that the purpose of amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution.  And his concern (June 11, 1787) was that Congress might not agree to amendments which would be needed to correct defects. ⁹

Neither Mason nor anyone else was so silly as to say that when the federal government violates the constitution, the solution is to amend the Constitution.

6. Why was the convention method added to Article V?

So also on Sept. 15, 1787, Governor Morris and Mr. Gerry moved to amend Article V so as to require a Convention on application of 2/3 of the States.

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton went along with it because they understood that a people have the right to meet in convention and draft a new constitution whether the convention method were in Article V or not.  They knew they couldn’t stop future generations from doing what they themselves had already done twice: Invoking the Right, acknowledged in the 2^nd para of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off one government and set up a new one. They invoked that Right during 1776 to throw off the British Monarchy; and during 1787, they invoked it to throw off the Articles of Confederation – and the government it had created – and set up a new Constitution which created a new government.  In Federalist No. 40 (15^th para), Madison specifically invoked this Right as justification for what they did at the federal “amendments” convention of 1787: They ignored the Resolution of February 21, 1787 of the Continental Congress  [link] which called the convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”; they ignored the instructions from their States [link] ¹⁰, and they drafted a new Constitution with a new and easier mode of ratification (only 9 States needed to ratify our Constitution of 1787).

So the convention method was added to Article V.  And it provided another way to get amendments. But it also provided a way to get a new Constitution – under the pretext of just getting amendments. ¹¹

7. What’s our real problem? Let’s man-up and address that

Our problem today is not a defective Constitution. Our problem is ignorance, loss of virtue, a willingness to sell our birthright for bowls of porridge from the federal government, refusal to think, and disobedience to our Founding Principles.  Our Framers expected us to be virtuous and informed; and the States to resist federal usurpations. ¹²

State governments could take a giant step in “limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government” by not taking federal funds to implement unconstitutional federal programs.

Open your eyes, Americans.  Do not permit the Globalists to complete their coup against us.

Endnotes:

¹ My friend Don Fotheringham and I discussed this issue; this paper reflects his valuable insights. His paper, “Article V is Deliberately Vague”, is HERE.

² Mason didn’t chop off his right hand. He, along with Edmund Randolph and Elbridge Gerry, refused to sign the Constitution: see Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention for Sep. 17, 1787. Randolph wanted the States to be able to propose amendments to the proposed Constitution, and then all would be submitted to and finally decided on by another general convention: Aug. 31, Sep. 10, and Sep. 15, 1787. Gerry’s objections to the proposed Constitution were such that “the best that could be done…was to provide for a second general Convention”: Sep. 15, 1787.

The federal convention of 1787 was called “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”[link] , and all referred to it as a “general convention” [search HERE for “general convention”, and you will see]. And in Madison’s Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville [link], he writes,

“…3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed …”

³ Madison opposed the convention method: Federalist No. 49 (Feb. 1788); his letter to Turberville of Nov. 2, 1788 [link]; his letter to George Eve of Jan. 2, 1789 [link]; and on June 8, 1789, he circumvented the application submitted to Congress by Virginia on May 5, 1789 for an Article V convention, by introducing into Congress a proposed “bill of rights”. That is the procedure we have followed ever since: When States want amendments, they instruct their congressional delegation to propose them.

⁴ In Federalist No. 85 (Aug. 1788), Hamilton addressed the arguments of antifederalists who wanted another convention so they could get rid of our newly ratified Constitution. The “excellent little pamphlet” he refers to (9^th para) was written during April 1788 by John Jay (first Chief Justice of the United States) and shows:

“the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded.”

Jay warned in his Pamphlet that another convention would run “extravagant risques” [risks].

⁵ Even though Article V speaks of “a Convention for proposing Amendments”, the Delegates would have the “self-evident” right, recognized in the 2^nd para of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off our existing Form of Government and set up a new Constitution which creates a new government. And since a new Constitution would also have its own new mode of ratification, it would surely be approved.

⁶ The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a national referendum [Art 12, § 1].

Here’s the proposed Constitution for “The New Socialist Republic in North America”.

The Constitution 2020 movement is backed by George Soros, Eric Holder, Cass Sunstein, and Marxist law professors. They want a progressive Constitution in place by the year 2020.

⁷ Farris’ paper, “Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V”, is HERE on the COS website; the copy I preserved is HERE.

⁸  Here’s an example of an amendment to remedy a perceived defect in our Constitution:  It originally delegated to federal courts the power to hear cases “between a State and Citizens of another State” (Art. III, §2, cl. 1). But when a Citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia, the States were outraged!  See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).  So during the Washington Administration, the 11^th Amendment was ratified to take away from the federal courts the power to hear cases filed by a Citizen against another State.

⁹  See Note 8 above.  What if Congress hadn’t agreed to propose that amendment?  That type of scenario is what Mason’s words addressed.  Here are examples of other defects Congress might not agree to repair by amendment:

♦ The Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional – it was authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 1, US Constitution. But it was oppressive because it benefited infant industries in the North at the expense of the Southern States.  An amendment could provide that tariffs may be imposed only to raise revenue to carry out the delegated powers of the federal government; and may not be imposed to benefit domestic industries, or to benefit one part of the Country at the expense of another part.  But Congress might not agree to such an amendment.

♦ Slavery was once permitted – the federal fugitive slave laws (Art. IV, §2, clause 3) were oppressive.  Slavery was a defect to be repaired by amendment.  But Congress might not agree to such an amendment.

¹⁰  Art. 13 of the Articles of Confederation required amendments to be agreed to by Congress and all of the States.  Here are the instructions the States gave delegates to the federal convention of 1787:

♦”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

¹¹ George Mason’s and Patrick Henry’s desire for an Article V convention so they could get rid of the Constitution of 1787, was no secret.  See, among various others of James Madison’s letters:

♦ His of April 22, 1788 to Thomas Jefferson [link at pages 121-122]: “Mr. H—y is supposed to aim at disunion.  Col. M—-n is growing every day more bitter… if a second Convention should be formed, it is as little to be expected that the same spirit of compromise will prevail in it as produced an amicable result in the first. It will be easy also for those who have latent views of disunion, to carry them on under the mask of contending for alterations….” 

♦ In his letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Edmund Randolph [link at page 295], he recites how, on October 27, Patrick Henry had introduced in the Virginia Assembly an application to the first congress “to call a second convention for proposing amendments to it…”  and that Mr. H—y’s “…enmity was levelled, as he did not scruple to insinuate agst the whole system; and the destruction of the whole system I take to be still the secret wish of his heart, and the real object of his pursuit…”

♦ In his letter of Dec. 8, 1788 to Jefferson [link at page 312]: “…it is equally certain that there are others who urge a second Convention with the insidious hope, of throwing all things into Confusion, and of subverting the fabric just established, if not the Union itself…

¹² Nullification Made Easy and What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power?

Revised July 5, 2020