By Publius Huldah
This speech was presented to Campaign For Liberty – Memphis on March 24, 2014. It exposes some of the false claims made by those pushing for the so-called “convention of states”. 1
Below are hyperlinks to the exhibits referred to in the speech. Additional resources are also included.
The one page Chart which illustrates our Declaration, Constitution, and federal system is HERE.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report 2 cited in the speech was dated March 7, 2014. CRS’s revised Report, dated April 11, 2014, is HERE. The Report exposes as false the assurances that the States would be in control of a convention. The Report says:
“First, Article V delegates important and exclusive authority over the amendment process to Congress…” (page 4)
“Second . . . Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including . . . (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates; (5) setting internal convention procedures, including formulae for allocation of votes among the states; . . .” (page 4) 3
“. . . [In previous bills filed in Congress] [a]pportionment of convention delegates among the states was generally set at the formula provided for the electoral college, with each state assigned a number equal to its combined Senate and House delegations. Some bills included the District of Columbia, assigning it three delegates, but others did not include the federal district. . .” (page 37; see also page 41)
“. . . A related question concerns vote allocation in an Article V Convention. Would delegates vote per capita, or would each state cast a single vote, during the convention’s deliberations, and on the final question of proposing amendments?. . .” [then follows a discussion of different views on this undecided issue] (page 41)
“Article V itself is silent on membership in an Article V Convention, so it is arguable that Congress, in summoning a convention to consider amendments, might choose to include the District of Columbia and U.S. territories as either full members at a convention, or possibly as observers. As noted previously, some versions of the Article V Convention procedures bills introduced in the late 20th century did provide for delegates representing the District of Columbia, although not for U.S. territories . . .” (page 42)
Page 40 of the Report shows there doesn’t seem to be any:
“. . . constitutional prohibition against [U.S.] Senators and Representatives serving as delegates to an Article V Convention. . . “
So! As the CRS Report states on page 27:
“In the final analysis, the question what sort of convention?” is not likely to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and a convention assembles.”
Do you see? But by then, it will be too late to stop it. HERE is former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger’s letter confirming this. 4
The text of the “parental rights” amendment is HERE. For two papers showing how Michael Farris’ proposed amendment delegates power over children to the federal and State governments, go HERE and, for the follow up paper, HERE.
To see how six of Mark Levin’s so-called “liberty amendments” do the opposite of what he claims, go HERE.
To see – on one page – proof of the original intents of the “interstate commerce”, “general welfare”, and “necessary and proper” clauses, go HERE.
The proponents of a convention portray the States as victims of federal tyranny. But the Truth is that the States voluntarily surrendered their retained powers, and the natural rights of The People, TO the federal government. And they did it for federal funds. Today, States get from 20% (Alaska) to 45.3% (Mississippi) of their State budgets from the federal government. State governments don’t want to rein in the feds! The people who run your State will do anything to keep their federal funds. HERE is the Pew Report.
Our Framers – those who actually signed the Constitution – NEVER said the purpose of amendments is to rein in the feds if they usurp powers. What they actually said is:
- amendments remedy defects in the Constitution (Hamilton at the federal convention on Sep. 10, 1787);
- useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers” (Federalist No. 85, 13th para); and
- “amendment of errors” & “useful alterations” would be suggested by experience (Federalist No. 43 at 8.)
HERE are the Articles of Confederation. Note that Art. XIII required approval of amendments by every State.
HERE is the Resolution, made by the Continental Congress on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74), to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia:
“…for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.
HERE is James Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville. Copy it to word processing, make paragraph breaks, & highlight it. Madison NEVER supported the convention method of amending our Constitution.
HERE is Joe Wolverton’s article about the Socialists’ involvement in the push for a convention.
HERE is the Constitution for the Newstates of America. Article XII addresses ratification by a referendum called by the President. Read HERE about the proposed Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America. Read them and see what is being planned for you by people you think are on your side.
HERE is the screen shot of Jordan Sillars’ comment re re-writing the Constitution.
For Q’s & A’s on this issue, go HERE.
1 There is no such thing as a “convention of states” to propose amendments. The term is a marketing gimmick used by proponents of an Article V convention to manipulate people into believing that the States would control an Article V convention – from start to finish.
Article V, US Constitution, provides two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution:
1. Congress proposes amendments and submits them to the States for ratification [the method we used for our existing 27 Amendments]; or
2. Congress calls a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments [for good reason, we have never used this method].
2 Even though we have never had an Article V convention; Congress has examined procedures for “calling” a convention so as to be ready if the need arises. The CRS Report proves that Congress has historically viewed its powers respecting “calling” a convention as exclusive and extensive. I thank Robert Brown for bringing the CRS Report to my attention.
3 The position Congress has historically taken in this regard is totally consistent with Article I, Sec. 8, last clause, which delegates to Congress power to make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out the power vested in Congress at Art. V to “call” the convention.
4 Folks! For the sake of your Posterity, you must understand this: After a convention is convened, the delegates can do whatever they want – including coming up with an entirely new Constitution with its own new method of ratification. Chief Justice Burger wrote in his June 22, 1988 letter to Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly:
“… there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose. . .”
The federal convention of 1787, which was called by the Continental Congress “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”, should serve as a warning: The delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress [and from their States]; ignored Art. XIII of the Articles of Confederation which required the States to obey Congress on matters covered by the Articles, and wrote an entirely NEW Constitution with a NEW method of ratification which required only 9 of the 13 States for ratification.
Credits: Many thanks to Devvy Kidd, Blue Tail Gadfly, and M. Craig Elachie, from whom I lifted the very best lines in the speech. PH
Posted October 11, 2014.
By Publius Huldah
The “Convention of States” (COS) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) page contains 989 words – none of them true – except for these which appear in the first paragraph:
“The federal government is spending this country into the ground … It’s time American citizens took a stand and made a legitimate effort to curb the power … of the federal government.”
In my last paper, I showed how our Constitution itemizes what Congress is authorized to spend money on; and that we have a $17 trillion debt because everyone ignores the limits the Constitution places on Congress’ spending powers.
To curb the federal government, We must do things we have neglected for over 100 years: Reclaim our role as “the natural guardians of the Constitution”; 1 learn our Founding Principles & Documents; enforce them with nullification and by rejecting candidates who don’t know them by heart; stop relying on politicians to handle things; 2 reclaim personal responsibility; and get ready for a rocky road ahead.
But the “convention of states” conspirators 3 say the only solution is a convention to “propose amendments” to the Constitution. They tell lies about nullification – the one remedy our Framers actually advised when the feds usurp powers. They say our Constitution is the problem. They say it contains “loopholes and vague phraseology” which politicians exploit. They suggest the States are victims of federal tyranny; are the ones to “fix” our Constitution; and that the States call and control the convention. They say it is impossible for the convention to force a new Constitution down our throats. But I submit that is precisely what they intend to do.
Jordan Sillars, Communications Director for COS, let the cat out of the bag when he said:
“… 3. I think the majority of Americans are too lazy to elect honest politicians. But I think some men and women could be found who are morally and intellectually capable of re-writing the Constitution…” [boldface mine].
Contrary to what the conspirators say, there is no way to stop the convention from “running away”: All the delegates need do is come up with a new Constitution. It can provide for any method of ratification they want.
That is what happened in 1787 when the Continental Congress called a convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. 4 The delegates ignored their instructions and wrote an entirely new Constitution with its own new method of ratification.
The Conspirators’ Campaign of Propaganda against The People
The conspirators’ claims spit in the Face of Facts and Reality. So how have they been able to convince people to believe their claims; and go along with their destructive scheme?
They are exploiting the ignorance and desperation of The People by manipulating them with propaganda. Their FAQ’s employ nine well known techniques of propaganda: 5
- Assume the Major Premise
- Appeal to Desperation
- Claim there is a Panacea
- Repetition for Emphasis
- The Big Lie
- Fabricated Legal Principles & Precedent [“Imaginary Evidence”]
- Exploit Wishful Thinking
- The Self-sell.
Assume the Major Premises
Throughout the FAQs, it is assumed that:
- The purpose of amendments is to control the federal government;
- Our Constitution is defective;
- That there is such a thing as a “convention of states” which States call and control;
- States will protect us from the federal government; and
- The federal government will obey amendments to the Constitution.
These are the five major assumptions upon which their scam is constructed. They don’t prove them – they know many will blindly accept them. Only thoughtful people examine assumptions.
But you can become a “thoughtful person” if you will start examining what you are told.
Their first major premise: The Truth is two (2) delegates at the Federal Convention of 1787 (Mason & Randolph) wanted States to be able to amend the Constitution without involvement of Congress. The conspirators’ crazy 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 amendment; and Mason & Randolph objected so much to our Constitution they refused to sign it.
Our Framers at the Federal Convention of 1787 understood that the purpose of amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution [slavery]; and that the novelty and difficulty of what they were doing would require periodic revision [the 11th, 12th, & 27th amendments]. Hamilton said in Federalist No. 85 (13th para) that useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers”. Madison said in Federalist No. 43 (at 8.) that “useful alterations will be suggested by experience.”
People are deceived by the conspirators’ first premise because they don’t understand that our Constitution created a federal government of strictly limited and defined – enumerated – powers. Everything the feds have authority to do is itemized in our Constitution. Does our Constitution delegate to the feds power to ban incandescent light bulbs, determine portion sizes of school lunches, and force us into obamacare? No! So what do you do when the feds usurp powers over such objects? Amend the Constitution? Really? How would you amend the Constitution to fix such usurpations? Make an Amendment saying the feds can’t regulate light bulbs? And so on for every power they usurp?
It is crazy to say the purpose of amendments is to control the federal government. When the feds usurp powers not delegated, no amendment saying they can’t do what they did will restrain them. They violated the Constitution when they usurped the power in the first place!
Furthermore, the amendments they write don’t restrict the feds: Michael Farris’ “parental rights amendment” delegates power over children to the federal and state governments, and empowers judges to determine the extent of that power! One of Randy Barnett’s amendments gives the feds lawful power over “harmful emissions” [EPA now exercises usurped powers], and power “to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States” [read that again!]. Mark Levin’s amendments also increase the powers of the feds by legalizing powers they have usurped. His “override” amendments remove the Constitution as the standard of what is lawful and what is not, and substitute majority vote. Yet the conspirators say such amendments would curb the federal government!
But we must not be distracted by proposed amendments. Their amendments are most likely a pretext to get a “convention” so they can carry out their plot to replace our Constitution.
Their second major premise: Our Constitution is the cause of our problems.
Except for some of the existing Amendments Americans already got manipulated into supporting, what is wrong with our Constitution? For the most part, it is easy to understand. For phrases federal judges have perverted – such as the “interstate commerce”, “general welfare”, & “necessary and proper” clauses, a quick look into The Federalist Papers usually reveals the original intent. I illustrate that here.
This one page chart illustrates the structure of our federal system and the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. What needs “fixing”? We are in our present mess because for 100 years, we elected & re-elected politicians to federal and state office who ignore it.
All our Constitution wants is (1) to be learned & obeyed; and (2) to have repealed some of the existing Amendments. Repeal those the same way we repealed the 18th Amendment. We don’t need a “convention” for that. Instead of sending ignorant phonies to Congress; send people who know the Constitution [make them pass tests before you support them] and commit to repealing the 17th Amendment and other ill-considered Amendments.
Their third major premise: That there is such a thing as a “convention of states”: The FAQs say “Article V, Section 2 of the Constitution” gives state legislatures the power to call a convention; that Federalist No. 85 says Congress has “no control over the delegates”; that “Virginia called the Philadelphia Convention of 1787”; and that “Basic common sense” and “Agency law 101” says “Each state chooses its own delegates”.
Those claims are truly bizarre.
Read Art. V: There is no “Section 2”. Article V says Congress calls the convention – not state legislatures. All state legislatures can do is apply to Congress for Congress to call it.
Federalist No. 85 says Congress must call a convention when two-thirds of the States apply for it. Hamilton does not say Congress has “no control over the delegates”! 6
Virginia did not “call” the Philadelphia Convention of 1787! The Continental Congress did. Their Resolution calling the 1787 convention, pursuant to Art. 13 of The Articles of Confederation, is quoted at endnote 4. And when the Continental Congress called the 1787 convention, they specifically provided that delegates would be appointed by the States. 4
But Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause, of our Constitution delegates to Congress power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested in it by Art. V. So Congress has the power to organize the convention, appoint the chairman and delegates, etc. The Mason & Randolph view was rejected. And the clear words of our Constitution cannot be changed by some ignorant person’s subjective conceptions of “common sense” and “Agency law 101”!
Their fourth major premise: That States are victims of federal tyranny and will rein in the federal government given the opportunity at a convention.
But look at what States have done. They have acquiesced in federal usurpations in exchange for federal funds. The States adopted unconstitutional federal education schemes such as “race to the top” and common core for the federal grant money.
DHS is becoming America’s equivalent of the East German STASI and Soviet KGB. With the connivance of State governments, DHS is taking over local & State law enforcement. And read about the fusion centers in every State – the States acquiesced!
John Barnes shows that State governments no longer focus on managing “a relatively self-contained polis”, but on “siphoning as much money as possible from the federal government”; and that “state government is becoming a mere pass-through for federal funds and an apparatus of federal policy.” Barnes shows us how State governments all over the Country are bloated with bureaucrats whose job is to “maximize federal funding”.
Google “maximize federal funding” – you will see. No rational person can believe that the politicians in the States – who are the ones who sold us to the feds in the first place – are the ones to rescue us from the feds. If the States wanted to, they could rein in the feds right now by using the remedy our Framers really did advise: Nullification.
Their fifth major premise: That the federal government will obey amendments.
But think! The feds continually violate the Constitution we have. They exercise thousands of usurped powers.
The conspirators insist the feds would obey future amendments because the feds haven’t violated recent amendments, such as women’s suffrage. Well, of course not! Of the 15 amendments ratified since the 12th in 1804; 10 increased the powers of the feds (13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, 26th); 7 and 4 were “housekeeping” amendments (20th, 22nd, 25th, 27th).
Do you see?
Appeal to Desperation
The gist of this propaganda technique is to argue that we must do something – we can’t do nothing – so let’s do what I propose. And we better do it “before it is too late”.
Many Americans are in a panic over the rapidity with which Obama – with the connivance of the Republican and Democrat parties and the State governments – is setting up a national totalitarian police state.
But we mustn’t allow the conspirators to exploit our desperation so as to induce us into surrendering our Constitution. All Americans who have fallen for the conspirators’ scam have been manipulated by THIS technique.
We have effective options. We have failed to gain the knowledge which would enable us to be the Sovereigns we are supposed to be. We have contented ourselves with blind faith in talk show hosts, politicians, and other charlatans. We are what needs fixing.
Claim there is a Panacea
With this, you claim that what you are offering is a magical cure for all the problems.
The conspirators say all we have to do to fix our problems is have a “convention of states”. They say they will propose amendments to the Constitution, and the federal government will be “fixed”. They ignore the facts that everyone has ignored the Constitution we have; that it was the States who sold us out in the first place; and that We The People kept reelecting ignorant & glib politicians who violate the Constitution to state & federal office.
There is no such thing as a panacea. We have a long road ahead of us to fix the problems We caused by our own folly, ignorance, and laziness.
Repetition for Emphasis
With this, you drive home a few simple and unproven points by repeating them over and over until the public believes them.
The five major premises listed above are repeated over & over & over & over & over. People believe them because they have been programed to believe them.
Orange quotes Adolf Hitler:
“It [propaganda] must repeat those points over and over again until the public believes it. The principles behind propaganda are the same principles of mind control, hypnotic suggestion, and mental programming: distraction and repetition. With propaganda, distraction draws attention away from information that is true and directs attention to information that is false. Repetition of the false information imbeds it in your subconscious mind so that your acceptance of its truth becomes a conditioned response. You accept this information as true without thinking whenever it is presented to you again.”
This is why most of mankind has lived under tyranny. People will believe anything if they hear it enough. Folks! You better start facing Reality and taking charge of what you believe.
The Big Lie
The gist of this is to:
“…keep repeating the same lie[s] over and over, in spite of all arguments and evidence to the contrary, until people believe it. Massive repetition is essential.”
It has already been proved by this and other writers that everything the conspirators say about nullification and a “convention” is false. But they keep repeating it. Why? Because massive repetition of lies will induce people to believe them.
Fabricated Legal Principles & Precedent [“Imaginary Evidence”]
The FAQs make various assertions about how this “convention of states” would operate, such as:
- “The applications must request a convention of states for the same subject matter” or “same issue”;
- “States are free to develop their own selection process for choosing their delegates… each state has one vote at the convention.”
The FAQs say this reflects “widely accepted” “procedures and rules” Rob Natelson found during his “extensive research”, which were followed in the “interstate conventions” which “were common” during “the Founding Era”.
Folks! If these customs existed and established binding precedent on the Congress we created when we ratified our Constitution, why did James Madison not know about them? During the Federal Convention of 1787, Madison said, respecting Article V:
September 10, 1787: 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?”
September 15, 1787: 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.
Do you see? And don’t forget: Article V says Congress calls the convention; and Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause, delegates to Congress power to make laws needed to execute the powers vested in it by Article V. This constitutional provision supersedes any “customs” to the contrary.
The gist of this technique is to:
“Reduce the issue to a few simple sentences that any blithering idiot can understand. Leave out all the complicated facts and confounding factors. Reduce the debate to just a few simple-minded sentences and slogans. Reduce complex multi-faceted issues to simplistic statements that can be expressed in a short sound bite.”
Aren’t the FAQs a few simple concepts any blithering idiot can understand?
It is this and other writers who point out the “complicated facts”. Are we too stupid to be free?
Exploit Wishful Thinking
With this technique, you tell people what they want to hear, rather than the unpleasant truths.
The conspirators are offering an easy way out which satisfies a deep yearning: to feel good. We don’t have to accept responsibility for our own failures to become a “natural guardian of the Constitution”; we are encouraged to blame shift and see the Constitution as the cause of our problems; and we don’t have to trouble ourselves to actually learn our Founding Principles & Documents. All we have to do is join the conspirators. And then, everything will be wonderful.
This technique gets people to convince themselves of your ideas by asking for their help in promoting your ideas. “They will sell themselves on the idea as they try to sell it to others.”
Orange gives this example of the Self-sell: In “Cold Turkey”, Dick Van Dyke plays a preacher who wants everyone in his town to quit smoking. He got the local Neo-Nazis to quit by enlisting them as “smoking-ban enforcers”.
The conspirators want to build a “grassroots operation” of volunteers to sell their scheme to State legislators [the ones who already sold us to the feds for federal funds.] And we have seen these volunteers’ mindless comments on the internet as they regurgitate the talking points in the FAQs – they sell themselves as they try to sell to others. 8
You better wise up now. Study this chart. Flesh it out with your readings of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Have study groups. What Hamilton asked you to be is not difficult.
1 Our Framers never saw courts as the final authority. See James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers. Hamilton expected us to be “a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority” (Federalist No. 16, next to last para).
2 Politicians are as ignorant as those who elect them. But we want a savior who will rescue us without any effort on our part. So we look to politicians to save us. They always betray us; and we are presented with still another phony who says what we want to hear, whom we support, and who betrays us. This happens because we don’t know our Constitution, and thus can’t evaluate the politicians. If WE knew our Constitution, those smooth-talking ignoramuses wouldn’t have a chance of getting elected. You would see right through them.
3 Progressives & phony “conservatives” have worked hand in hand for many years to replace our Constitution. See Richard D. Fry, “Convention of States”: The Wrong Solution to the Wrong Problem.
4 The conspirators tell the brazen lie that the convention “cannot throw out the Constitution because it derives its authority from the Constitution.” Rubbish! Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74):
“Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.” [emphasis mine]
The delegates ignored these limitations and wrote a new Constitution with a new method of ratification. It is impossible to stop this from happening at another convention. And George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won’t be there.
The conspirators also say a “Constitutional Convention” is safe because no amendment will be passed which is not ratified by ¾ of the States. This is deceptive because the concern is about a runaway convention & a new Constitution – not amendments. Since a new Constitution can have any method of ratification the delegates want, it can be forced on us.
5 See Propaganda and Debating Techniques by A. Orange. Orange is a “librul”, and on a vendetta against AA. But he understands how scoundrels use propaganda to deceive the unthinking. See how Adolf Hitler used these same techniques to manipulate the German People.
6 I addressed this same lie in “Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments!” under the subheading, “What Levin Claims Article V Says”. Congress’ lack of discretion is limited to the issue of “to call or not to call” a convention once the requisite number of States has applied for it. After Congress “calls” the convention, Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause kicks in to empower Congress to make all laws necessary to carry out the call.
7 The result of the voting amendments (15th, 19th, 24th, 26th)was to transfer the power of determining voter qualifications from the States (Art. I, Sec. 2, cl.1) to the federal government.
It was necessary to amend the Constitution to remedy the defects which permitted slavery; but the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments delegated powers over the States to the federal government. It would have been better to merely repeal the provisions at Art. I, Sec. 2, cl.3 which provided for a partial counting of slaves; and Art. IV, Sec. 2, cl. 3 which permitted Congress to make laws against fugitive slaves. And if the States had been wise instead of foolish, they would have banned slavery and extended citizenship & civil rights to freed slaves on their own, and provided the education to help them make the transition from slave to citizen. Stupidity and wickedness are not cheap, Folks. And Amendments are a very tricky business.
8 There is nothing wrong with asking others to help promote ideas – when the ideas are True and Good. But when the ideas are destructive and false, the self-sell is immoral manipulation. PH
January 28, 2014
The “Convention of States” Scam, the War over the Constitution, and how the States Sold the Reserved Powers to the Feds.
By Publius Huldah
Our Constitution is a glorious document. This one page chart depicts the Structure of the federal government we created when we ratified our Constitution; and lists the “limited & enumerated powers” we delegated to the federal government over the Country at Large.
In a nutshell, our Constitution authorizes the federal government to handle the following objects for the Country at Large:
- Military defense, international commerce & relations;
- Control immigration & naturalization of new citizens;
- Domestically, to create a uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
- With some of the amendments, secure certain civil rights.
Basically, that’s it. As stated in the 10th Amendment, all others powers are reserved by the States or The People.
But for 100 years, almost everyone in our Country has ignored our Constitution. Thus, instead of restricting spending to the enumerated objects of its powers, the people WE send to Congress spend money on what anybody wants – and so gave us a debt of $17 trillion. Instead of restricting lawmaking to the enumerated objects of its powers, the people WE send to Congress make laws on whatever they like. The President WE elected tramples all over the Constitution; and due to the connivance, cowardice, and ignorance of Congress, the supreme Court, State governments, and the American People, is seizing totalitarian power.
WE are in terrible trouble.
And it is the phony right wing which is seducing the American People into taking the final jump off the cliff.
“We all know that our government is way off track. The debt is astronomical and is going to cripple not only our own freedom and our own economy, but our children and our grandchildren are going to be effectively slaves, paying for all the things that we’re spending money on today.”
That part of his video is true.
But the purpose of their spiels is to make you believe they are on your side. You must look behind the spiels and think carefully about what they are proposing as “solutions”. Much is at stake:
THIS IS THE WAR over our Constitution and Country. And here are the two sides:
Learn & Enforce our Existing Constitution!
One side proposes that we learn & enforce our existing Constitution of limited & enumerated powers. We show that our Framers advised us to enforce our Constitution by (1) electing better representatives to annul the acts of the usurpers, 2 or by (2) nullification of unconstitutional acts.
To illustrate: What would our Country’s financial condition be if WE THE PEOPLE had enforced the enumerated powers on Congress?
It is the enumerated powers which list the objects on which Congress may appropriate funds:
- immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
- mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
- Attorney General (Art. I, §8, cl. 6)
- post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
- patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
- federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9)
- military (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
- the civil list (Art. I, §6, cl.1)
- [and other objects listed in various other articles, sections, &clauses]
Do you get the idea? The Constitution itemizes what Congress is permitted to spend money on. See also the two geographical areas over which Congress was delegated “general legislative powers”: Art. I, §8, next to last clause, & Art. IV, §3, cl. 2.
The reason we have a debt of $17 trillion is because everyone ignored the Constitution; so Congress spent money on objects outside the scope of its enumerated powers.
Amend Away our Existing Constitution?
But the Randy Barnett 3/ Rob Natelson/ Michael Farris/ Mark Levin camp want a “convention” so they can gut our existing Constitution by amending out the limited & enumerated powers with new amendments which grant general powers to the federal government; or they seek to re-write the Constitution altogether.
Here are illustrations of how the limited & enumerated powers can be amended out of our Constitution:
It has already been shown how the so-called balanced budget amendment would transform our Constitution from one of enumerated spending powers to one of general spending powers, where spending would be limited only by the amount of revenue the federal government generates or a certain percentage of the GDP. 4 But under our existing Constitution, the federal government’s expenditures are limited by the constitutional grants of authority – the enumerated powers. The problem is everyone ignores the enumerated powers – they never even bothered to learn what they are!
Here is another illustration: Michael Farris, the grand master of The Spiel, has managed to convince many parents that the only way to protect their parental rights is an amendment to the Constitution which delegates to the federal and State governments constitutional power over their children!
And Mark Levin’s suggested amendments would gut our Constitution. Most increase the powers of the federal government by making constitutional what is now unconstitutional because it is not an enumerated power. The amendments pertaining to “overrides” undermine the Constitution as the objective standard of what is lawful and what is not – and substitute majority vote therefor. These “overrides” would erase the Constitution and replace it with majority (mob) rule.
Or is “re-writing the Constitution” their actual goal?
Farris says in the video:
“…sometimes what you need is not a change of personnel, you need a change of structure. The Founders understood the importance of structure…”
Does that give you cold chills?
How does Farris seek to change the structure?
Please – all of you – look at this one page chart which depicts The Structure of the federal government our Framers gave us: What needs changing? Isn’t enforcement what we need?
Jordan Sillars, Communications Director for Farris’ Convention of States Project, let the cat out of the bag:
On September 15, 2013, a discussion on my Face Book page was started about Mark Levin’s clamoring for a “convention of states”.
On or before September 19, Jordon Sillars posted a comment wherein he said:
“… 3. I think the majority of Americans are too lazy to elect honest politicians. But I think some men and women could be found who are morally and intellectually capable of re-writing the Constitution…” [boldface mine].
On September 19 at 1:20 p.m., I responded:
“So, this really is about “re-writing the Constitution”, isn’t it?
And could you name these individuals who are “morally and intellectually capable of re-writing the Constitution”?”
Sillars thereafter deleted his comments, but not before I obtained a screen shot of his quoted comment which you can see here.
Why did he delete his comments?
Now let’s look more at what Farris says in his video:
The False Statements & Silly Arguments of the Proponents of a “convention of States”
1. After his introduction about the $17 trillion debt, Farris goes on to say:
“The States have the power under Article V to call a convention of the States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution…”
His statement is false.
The Truth is the States have no authority to call the convention. That power is delegated to Congress. Article V says:
“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…” [emphasis mine]
Congress calls it. Not the States.
Furthermore, Dr. Edwin Vieira has pointed out:
‘The language “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments” sets out a constitution duty in Congress. It embraces a constitutional power as well. That brings into play Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, which delegates to Congress the power “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers [that is, in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 through 17], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”. The power to “call a Convention for proposing Amendments” is one of those “all other Powers”. Therefore, pursuant to that power, Congress may enact whatever “Law[ ] which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the * * * Power [to call a Convention]’.
So! Since Article V vests in Congress the power to call the convention; and since Article I, §8, last clause, vests in Congress the power to make all laws necessary & proper to execute its delegated powers; 5 Congress would be within its constitutional authority to organize the Convention 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, “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).
Phyllis Schlafly also raised Twenty Questions about a Constitutional Convention.
Congress, pursuant to Article V and Article I, §8, last clause, has the constitutional power to answer all these questions by means of a law.
Folks! The Farris/Natelson/ Levin camp is not telling you the truth when they say the States decide these issues!
2. Farris then says in his video:
“…in Article V of the Constitution [the Founding Fathers] gave us the solution…”
“…they gave the power to the States to create a new set of rules when the federal government overstepped its boundaries. We can recalibrate the rules to take power away from Washington D.C. and give it back to the people and to the States.”
His statements are both false and silly.
Here is the false part of what he said:
It was not the consensus at the Federal Convention of 1787 that the purpose of Article V was so States could make amendments to the Constitution in order to take power away from a federal government which had usurped power by violating the Constitution.
This chart shows what happened at the Federal Convention of 1787 re development of Article V.
Two delegates (Randolph & Mason, who didn’t sign the Constitution) supported the notion that amendments might be used if the national government should become oppressive. And they didn’t want Congress to have any power over amendment procedures. Their view was the minority view.
Other delegates (Gov. Morris, Hamilton & Madison) thought Congress ought to be able to propose amendments. One delegate (Mr. Gerry) worried about States obtaining a convention and binding the Union to innovations which subverted State Constitutions. Hamilton spoke of amendments to correct defects which would probably appear in the Constitution.
So 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. [Now see Art. I, §8, last clause.]
Now for the silly parts of what Farris said (and there are two silly parts):
3. Farris tells us the solution to a federal government which “overstep[s] its boundaries” [violates the Constitution] is to amend the Constitution.
He proposes “to take power away from Washington D.C.” [power the federal government has usurped] by “recalibrate[ing] the rules”.
In other words, the solution to a federal government which violates the Constitution is to amend the Constitution.
Do you see how silly this is?
4. Farris and his camp also imply that the States are victims of federal tyranny, and are the virtuous & wise ones who can fix our Country if they can just get a convention to propose amendments.
But the States are the ones who sold you out to the federal government in the first place! I’ll show you:
The 10th Amendment says:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.
What happened to these reserved powers?
The States sold them to the federal government.
Let’s use education as an illustration of how the States sold to the federal government your reserved power to educate your own children in the way you see fit.
The Creator God who, as recognized by our Declaration of Independence, endowed us with unalienable rights; assigned to parents the responsibility to provide for the education & moral instruction of their children: Proverbs 1:8-9, 6:20-21, 13:1, 22:6 & 23:19-22; Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 4:9-10 & 6:1-7; Ephesians 6:1-4; 2 Timothy 1:5 & 3:15-17.
Is “education” one of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government for the Country at large? No. So the federal government has no constitutional authority to get involved. Accordingly, all acts of Congress pertaining to education for the Country at Large, the federal Department of Education, and all their rules & programs are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.
So why does the federal government dictate all things respecting education?
Because your States sold your God-given responsibility to educate your own children – and your reserved power to do so – to the federal government. This has been going on for a long time; but most recently your State sold you out for federal grants with the federal government’s “race to the top” and “common core” schemes. 7
You have to be ignorant, unthinking, & gullible – a greenhorn – to believe that The States are the men in the white hats who can fix all this with a convention to propose amendments.
The federal government is not the problem – it is the result of our own ignorance, pride and folly.
WE THE PEOPLE, who are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” (Federalist No. 16, next to last para) didn’t trouble ourselves to learn the enumerated powers of Congress and the President. Do you know them?
I ask my Readers who have been supporting the “convention of States” scheme: Have you studied our Founding Principles set forth in The Declaration of Independence? Have you studied the text of the Constitution so that you know what it says?
If not, how are you qualified to know how to “fix” a Constitution you never learned?
Are you willing to stake your lives & liberties, and those of your progeny, on whether those in the Barnett/Natelson/Farris/ Levin camp (1) know what they are talking about, and (2) are telling the truth?
Why? Because you like them? Because they provide a scapegoat which permits you to blame-shift? And you think you can “get even”?
Wise voices in this Country are warning you about the scam. Foremost among them is Phyllis Schlafly, who has been warning of this danger for decades. Yet, such is the ignorant conceit of the greenhorns that they sneer at those who are warning them.
I trust you now see the connection between the moral corruption of a People and tyranny.
1 Use your own head! Do not be manipulated by other peoples’ choice of words. Rob Natelson formerly referred to what he wants as a “constitutional convention”. Now, he calls it a “Convention of the States” – that is the term his cohorts & minions now use. Why did they change what they called it?
2 But our elections are no longer honest. The States took federal grant money to buy voting machines which can be rigged.
3 Randy Barnett’s “Bill of Federalism” is ten proposed amendments which would transform our Constitution from one of enumerated powers to one of general & unlimited powers. Mark Levin’s proposed amendments are similar to Barnett’s.
4 The GDP is computed by an agency in the Executive Branch. So under the BBA, spending would be limited by numbers under the control of the federal government: By how much they tax you; or by a number (GDP) the Executive Branch computes. You think that is a fine idea?
5 The Federalist Papers tell us what the “necessary & proper” clause (Art. I, §8, last clause) means: The clause delegates to Congress power to pass all laws necessary & proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary & proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 4th para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (Federalist No. 33, 2nd para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a tautology or redundancy. (Federalist No. 33, 4th para). See also Federalist No. 44, 10th -17th paras. In other words, the clause permits the execution of powers already declared and granted.
Do not be misled by Rob Natelson’s post on the “necessary & proper” clause! Why did Natelson ignore what The Federalist Papers say about this clause? Why did he fabricate the song & dance set forth in his post?
6 Think this through also: Even if Congress, as a matter of grace, permitted the States to appoint delegates, how would delegates from your State be chosen? Who controls your State? Would the powers in your State choose you? Or do you believe Michael Farris would choose the leaders?
7 This happened in your State because The People in your State elected to State government people who sold you out. See this website on federal grants: http://www.ffis.org/database You think your State Legislators, who have been gobbling up all the federal grant money they can get, will fix our Country at a “convention” to propose amendments? PH.
By Publius Huldah
Our Declaration of Independence says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.– That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” (2nd para) [emphasis mine]
So! Rights come from God; they are unalienable; the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us; and when government takes away our God given rights, it’s time to “throw off such Government”.
That is our Founding Principle.
Let us now compare our Founding Principle with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It enumerates 30 some “rights”, among which are:
“Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 21 … 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections …
Article 29 … 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” [all boldface mine]
So! Rights are enumerated; they come from man [constitutions or laws]; governments may do whatever a majority of people want them to do [instead of securing rights God gave us]; and rights may be limited by law & are subject to the will of the United Nations [not God].
Now, let’s look at the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) from the website of parentalrights.org and compare it with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.
The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.
Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life. [all boldface mine]
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”
So! Under the PRA, parental rights come from the Constitution – not God. They are only “fundamental” rights, not unalienable rights. They are enumerated rights, the extent of which will be decided by federal judges. 2 And these “fundamental” rights may be infringed by law when the federal or State governments have a good reason for infringing them.
And even though parental rights.org uses the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child to terrorize parents into supporting the PRA; 3 the PRA itself is the repudiation of our Founding Principles that Rights come from God and are unalienable, and that the sole purpose of civil government is to secure the rights GOD gave us; and adoption of the U.N. theory that rights come from the State, will be determined by the State, and are revocable at the will of the State.
Let’s turn to Michael Farris’ paper posted July 9, 2013 in Freedom Outpost. His paper followed my initial paper where I addressed, Section by Section, the PRA of which Farris is principal author. He is also Executive Director of parental rights.org
1. Mr. Farris’ rationale for the PRA: Scalia’s Dissent in Troxel v. Granville (2000)
Farris cites Scalia’s dissent to support his own perverse theory that unless a right is enumerated in the federal Constitution, judges can’t enforce it, and the right can’t be protected.
But Farris ignores the majority’s holding in Troxel, and misstates the gist of Scalia’s dissent. I’ll show you.
This case originated in the State of Washington, and involved a State Statute (§26.10.160(3)) addressing visitation rights by persons who were not parents. Two grandparents filed an action under this State Statute wanting increased visitation of their grandchildren. The mother (Granville) was willing to permit some visitation, but not as much as the grandparents wanted.
This State family law case got to the U.S. supreme Court on the ground that the “due process clause” of the 14th Amendment was at stake.
And what did the supreme Court say in Troxel v. Granville ?
“…In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children…”
“…We therefore hold that the application of §26.10.160(3) to Granville and her family violated her due process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her daughters.” [all boldface mine]
Do you see? The supreme Court has already “discovered”, in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, a parental right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of children.
Now! In order to understand Scalia’s dissent, one must first learn:
- That the powers of the federal courts are enumerated and strictly defined; and
- The original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, and how the supreme Court perverted it.
These are explained in detail here: Judicial Abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment: Abortion, Sexual Orientation, & Gay Marriage. In a nutshell, the linked paper shows that federal courts may lawfully hear only cases falling within the categories enumerated at Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution. One of these categories is cases:
“…arising under this Constitution…”
In Federalist Paper No. 80 (2nd para), Alexander Hamilton says that before a case can properly be said to “arise under the Constitution”, it must:
“…concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” [emphasis added]
So! Does our federal Constitution “expressly contain” provisions about abortion? Homosexual sex? Homosexual marriage? Parental rights? No, it does not.
Since these matters are not delegated to the federal government, they are reserved to the States and The People (10th Amendment). The federal government has no lawful authority over these issues.
Well, then, how did the supreme Court overturn State Statutes criminalizing abortion and homosexual sex, and State Statutes addressing parental rights?
They used the “due process” clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment to usurp power over these issues. Section 1 says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [boldface mine]
Professor Raoul Berger proves in his book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.
Professor Berger also shows (Ch. 11) that “due process” is a term with a “precise technical import” going back to the Magna Charta. It means that a person’s life, liberty or property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial!
Professor Berger stresses that “due process of law” refers only to trials – to judicial proceedings in courts of justice. It does not involve judicial power to override State Statutes!
Justice Scalia understands this.
And now, you can understand Scalia’s dissent. What he actually says is:
- Parental rights are “unalienable” and come from God (Declaration of Independence). They are among the retained rights of the people (9th Amendment). [Parental rights don’t come from the 14th Amendment!]
- The Declaration of Independence does not delegate powers to federal courts. It is the federal Constitution which delegates powers to federal courts.
- It is for State Legislators and candidates for that office to argue that the State has no power to interfere with parents’ God-given authority over the rearing of their children, and to act accordingly. [The People need to elect State Legislators who understand that the State may not properly infringe God given parental rights.]
- The federal Constitution does not authorize judges to come up with their own lists of what “rights” people have 4 and use their lists to overturn State statutes. [That is what the supreme Court did when they fabricated “liberty rights” to abortion and homosexual sex, and overturned State Statutes criminalizing these acts.]
- The federal Constitution does not mention “parental rights” – such cases do not “arise under the Constitution”. So federal courts have no “judicial power” over such cases.
In his closing, Scalia warns against turning family law over to the federal government:
“…If we embrace this unenumerated right … we will be ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed, family law. I have no reason to believe that federal judges will be better at this than state legislatures; and state legislatures have the great advantages of doing harm in a more circumscribed area, of being able to correct their mistakes in a flash, and of being removable by the people.” [emphasis mine]
Do you see? “Parental rights” is a state matter; and parents need to replace bad State legislators.
But the PRA delegates power over “parental rights” to the federal government and makes it an enumerated power.
So! When Farris says:
“4. The Parental Rights Amendment does not give the Judiciary legislative power but constrains the judiciary’s exercise of its existing power.”
His words are false. The PRA transforms what is now a usurped power over parental rights seized by the supreme Court by perverting Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment [the majority opinion in Troxel illustrates this], to an enumerated power of the federal government.
2. The PRA expressly delegates to the federal and State governments power to infringe God-given parental rights!
Mr. Farris asserts that the PRA gives no power to Congress over children because he – the principal author of the PRA – purposefully left out the language which appears in other amendments that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”.
So! What did Farris put in his PRA? Look at his SECTION 3:
“Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interestas applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.” [emphasis mine]
The wording assumes the federal and State governments will be making laws “infringing” parental rights! And because of the PRA, such laws will be constitutional! 5
The only issue will be whether such acts of Congress [the Legislative Branch of the federal government] “serve the government’s interest”. And who will decide? The federal courts [the Judicial Branch of the federal government] will decide.
The same goes for State Statutes and State courts.
Furthermore, Acts of Congress or State Statutes need only recite the boilerplate language that the law “serves the government’s interest, etc.”, and it will go to the courts clothed with a presumption of correctness.
3. The PRA is not “just like” the Second Amendment
Mr. Farris says the PRA is
“… just like the Second Amendment in this regard. The Second Amendment gives no level of government the power to regulate guns. (Any such power comes from some other provision of the Constitution [state or federal]). And the Second Amendment is a limitation on the exercise of such powers.”
WE THE PEOPLE did not delegate to the federal government power to restrict our arms.
The 2nd Amendment shows that WE THE PEOPLE really meant it when we declined to give the federal government enumerated power to restrict our arms.
So! As shown here, all federal laws and rules of the BATF pertaining to background checks, dealer licensing, banning sawed off shotguns, etc., are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government, and as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
The PRA is not “just like” the 2nd Amendment because the PRA is an express delegation of power over children and parental rights to the federal and State governments!
4. Pen Names
Publius is the pen name used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay when, during 1787 and 1788, they wrote The Federalist Papers to explain the proposed Constitution and induce The People to ratify it.
Huldah is the prophet at 2 Kings 22. The Book of the Law had been lost for a long time. When it was found, it was taken to Huldah who gave guidance about it to the king and his priests.
Do you see? And it’s about Our Country – not my personal glory, fame, and fundraising.
My qualifications? My work speaks for itself.
5. Learn the Constitution and understand the PRA? Or put your trust in Farris?
My previous paper is about the PRA and our Constitution. It isn’t about Mr. Farris.
But Farris’ response is about persons: 429 of his 2,044 words are devoted to his illustrious self; 170 words are spent to disparage Publius Huldah.
I teach the original intent of our Constitution so that our People can become what Alexander Hamilton expected them to be:
“… a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority…” Federalist Paper No. 16 (next to last para)
To that end, I have published some 50 papers proving that original intent, using The Federalist Papers as the best evidence of that original intent.
We must all do our civic duty and learn our Founding Principles and Constitution so that we can learn to think for ourselves and help restore our Constitutional Republic.
But Farris says you should believe in … him. He says:
“6. Who are you going to believe—a trusted advocate for parental rights or an anonymous blogger?”
He doesn’t ask you to learn and think – he asks you to believe … in him.
6. An Alternative Organization: National Home Education Legal Defense (NHELD)
NHELD has been warning for years about the Parental Rights Amendment. NHELD
“…does not believe in blindly following the word of anyone. NHELD … does not believe in just directing families to act in unison on the basis of an opinion that NHELD … has formed on its own. NHELD … believes in an informed, empowered citizenry, who is able to fight for freedom effectively…”
“…individuals not to take the word of anyone else about what … legislation says, but to read the text for themselves …”
7. How do Governments “secure” our God given Rights?
Our rights must be “secured” from people & civil governments who seek to take them away.
For an illustration of how the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government enable it to “secure” our God given rights to life, liberty & property, see James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers, under the subheading, Our Founding Principles in a Nutshell. The federal government isn’t to secure these rights in all ways – just in those ways appropriate to the national government of a Federation of Sovereign States.
The powers reserved by The States and The People enable the States to secure these rights in the ways appropriate to States. States secure our right to life by prosecuting murderers, drunk drivers, quarantining people with infectious deadly diseases, etc. States secure our property rights by prosecuting robbers; by providing courts for recovery for fraud, breach of contract; etc.
Civil governments are controlled by limiting their powers.
To delegate to the federal government express power to infringe “parental rights” under the pretext of “protecting” such rights is absurd! But that is Farris’ argument.
Parents! Justice Scalia gives excellent advice: elect to your State Legislature people who understand that your responsibilities to your children are determined by God alone.
We must stop looking for the magic pill, roll up our sleeves, man up, and fix our own States.
The PRA is a radical transformation of our conception of Rights from being unalienable gifts of God to the UN Model where “rights” are granted by government and revocable at the will of government. This is being sold to you as a means of “protecting” your parental rights! But it transfers power over children to the federal and State governments. You are being told to trust the “experts” and “believe” what they tell you. But if the PRA is ratified, the federal and State governments will have constitutional authority to infringe your “parental rights”. And you will have no recourse.
POSTSCRIPT Added August 22, 2013: You need to understand that the poisonous & deceptive “parental rights amendment” is what would give the federal government and the state governments CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to implement the hellish plan described in the attached link. Once they have constitutional authority you will have no recourse but to take up arms.
1Craigers61 pointed out that Section 3 of the PRA is a paraphrase of [Article 29] of the UN [Declaration] in which:
“… all of the rights “given” by the UN earlier in the document can be taken back if any right goes against the UN’s “mission.” It’s a big finger on the chess piece in which the Political power can take back the right granted at any time they deem…
…Also, do you see the other problem here? The STATE grants the right to the parents! … In classical liberalism, the philosophy that founded the USA, all rights are INALEIANBLE! They reside in the human being themselves! They cannot be given, they cannot be taken and they cannot be circumscribed by the STATE…”
2 Bob in Florida asks Farris:
“But, what you say we must do – pass the Parental Rights Amendment – to defeat the Scalia argument that there is no legal text to cite to allow parents to have rights to direct their children’s education, medical care, etc., requires that we do exactly what the writers of the Constitution did not want to do – enumerate each and every right we have.
Their reason was that this would require that we enumerate each and every right and to leave one out would imply we don’t have that right. Their chosen approach was to only define the powers given to the government and all others were reserved to the States or the People. [emphasis mine]
Are you not advocating we do exactly what they didn’t want to do – enumerate each and every right?”
3 Congress may lawfully ratify only treaties which address enumerated powers. Since “parental rights” & “children” are not enumerated powers, any ratified treaty addressing such would be a proper object of nullification. But if the PRA is ratified, then these will be enumerated powers, and the Senate will have lawful authority to ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child.
4 It is GOD’s prerogative to decide what Rights we have. Not mans’.
5 Un-anonymous blogger Doug Newman pointed out four years ago that:
“…The PRA actually puts a constitutional blessing on federal intrusion into parenting…”
July 28, 2013; postscript added August 22, 2013