STOP an Article V Convention – read the proposed new Constitutions which our enemies want to impose
Share this:
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 11th 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 11th Amendment which took away from the federal courts the constitutional authority to hear cases filed by a Citizen against another State. So the 11th 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, 8th 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 12th & 13th Amendments, like the 11th Amendment, corrected defects in the Constitution. Section 1 of the 14th 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 (10th 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 14th 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 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th 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 (15th 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?
Share this:
“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.
Share this:
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 (15th 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.
Share this:
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:
- proposes amendments and sends them to the States for ratification; or
- 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, 13th 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 2nd 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 (15th 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 (9th 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 2nd 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 11th 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
Share this:
The TOP DOWN push for an Article V convention
By Publius Huldah
Ever since, some 60 years ago, the Ford Foundation produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America, it has always been the political elite and the big money who are behind the push for an Article V convention. Today, people and politicians who posture as men of virtue and “conservatives principles” are being paid to support an Article V convention – e.g. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2017/03/01/major-conservatives-piggy-banks-behind-texas-obsession-amending-constitution
See also, http://le.utah.gov/house2/CofI/IVORYK1.pdf
Anyone who refuses to look into this is willfully blind and morally culpable.
The billionaires who are buying an Article V convention (Koch Brothers, George Soros), have no intention of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the government over us!
The propaganda put out by the con-con lobby is able to take root in those who don’t know what our Constitution already says; don’t understand our Founding Principles; and don’t know our History on throwing off governments and setting up new ones. We’ve already done it twice!
The enemies of our Constitution want to do it a third time. Since they know you wouldn’t agree to it; they are telling you things which aren’t true.
Listen up:
Our Declaration of Independence says at the 2nd paragraph that a People have the right to throw off their form of government and set up a new one. We invoked that Principle in 1776 to throw off British Rule. We invoked that Principle again in 1787 to throw off the Articles of Confederation and the government it created, and set up a new Constitution [the one we have now] which created a new government.
People who don’t know that are unable to understand that if there is an Article V convention today, the Delegates can do the same thing! Throw off the Constitution we have and set up a new one which creates a new government.
For heavens sake, People! New Constitutions are already written and waiting in the wings for an Article V convention! Here’s one of them – it’s ratified by a national Referendum. The States don’t vote on it. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm#.WLrJEn98ExE
George Soros wants a Progressive Constitution in place by the year 2020. http://keywiki.org/Constitution_2020
George W. Bush, the Council on Foreign Relations, and others want to move the United States into the North American Union. Canada, the US, and Mexico are to merge and a Parliament set up over them. In order to do this, they need a new Constitution for the US to transform us from a sovereign nation to a member state in the NAU. How do they get a new Constitution? At an Article V convention. How do they get an Article V convention? Pay people who pose as conservatives to tell the American People that we need a convention to get amendments which will limit the power of the federal government.
And the people who don’t understand our Founding Principles, don’t know our History, and don’t know what our Constitution already says, fall for the subterfuge.
READ the Task Force Report on the NAU. Heidi Cruz was on the Task Force which wrote the Report: http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102
Americans! Wake up! You are being scammed and tricked and lied to. And bought and paid for politicians and charlatans are selling you into slavery.
God gave you a brain. It is wicked for you to refuse to use it.
Update Jan. 12, 2018: All US Presidents since (and including) Ronald Regan have been advancing our movement into the NAU. Watch this excellent 15 minute video: https://youtu.be/lNhp9H3yCsI
This is a Revolution against us by the global elite. This push for an Article V convention is from the top down – it is how the Elite can impose their will on us.
Do not continue to unwittingly assist the global elite in enforcing their will on us!
Share this:
Convention Supporters’ Myths about State Control of Delegates
By Publius Huldah
Convention supporters assure us that the States will have control over Delegates to an Article V convention.
That is not true.
The Truth is States have no power over the convention at Art. V. All they can do is “apply” to Congress for Congress to “call” a convention. THIS CHART by Judi Caler shows who has the power to do what respecting an Article V convention.
Delegates to an Article V convention are performing a federal function – they are not under the authority of the States.
Furthermore, Delegates are the sovereign representatives of The People and thus are vested with plenipotentiary powers to alter or abolish our form of government – our Constitution (Declaration of Independence, 2nd para).
This has already happened once in our history:
At the Federal Convention of 1787, this plenipotentiary power was exercised to replace our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, with the Constitution we now have. On February 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. But instead of proposing amendments to our first Constitution, the Delegates wrote a new Constitution – the one we now have.
Furthermore, the new Constitution had a new and easier mode of ratification: Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (p 8-9) provided that Amendments to the Articles had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States. But the new Constitution, drafted at the “amendments” convention of 1787, provided at Art. VII thereof that it would be ratified upon approval by only nine of the then existing 13 States.
And the Delegates to that convention disregarded the instructions of their States as well as the instructions of the Continental Congress.
So! Not only do Delegates to a national convention have this plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution; the precedent to do so has already been established.
It is child’s play to figure out how to get around State’s “faithful delegate” laws. This is how to do it:
- If the proceedings are secret, the States won’t know what is going on – and can’t stop it.
- And if Delegates vote by secret ballot – the States would never know who did what.
So! Do you see? It would be impossible for States to prosecute Delegates who ignore State instructions.
Is it any wonder that James Madison, and Supreme Court Justices Arthur J. Goldberg and Warren Burger said that Delegates to an Article V convention can’t be controlled?
When James Madison and two former US Supreme Court Justices have warned that delegates to an Article V convention can’t be controlled, it is wicked to dismiss their warnings as “fear mongering”.
Share this:
Open Letter to State Legislators Everywhere: The Other Side of the Article V Convention Issue
By Publius Huldah
If there is an Article V convention, we will lose the Constitution we have, and another Constitution will be imposed.
You are not getting both sides of this issue. Throughout the Country, those of us who are warning of the dangers of an Article V convention are marginalized, ridiculed, smeared, shut out of meetings, and barred from speaking in public forums. THIS short essay from the Principled Policy Blog describes what we face every day.
THIS article is an account by Donny Harwood, a Citizen of Tennessee, describing how he was shut out of the public meeting which the Convention of States people held on October 19, 2015 at the Millennium Maxwell House Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee. According to The Leaf-Chronicle, a number of Tennessee Legislators were at the meeting. A prominent Tennessee radio talk show host was also present.
And everyone at the meeting was prevented from hearing the other side of this issue.
The reason convention proponents forbid dissenting voices is that we prove, by means of Facts and original source documents, that the claims and promises of the convention proponents are false. HERE are some of the original source documents Legislators would hear about if they were presented with the other side of this issue.
We are in the final stage of a takeover. Statists of every variety [this includes the phony “conservatives”] want a new Constitution to legalize our transformation from the constitutional Republic created by our existing Constitution to a dictatorship.
To get a new Constitution, they need a convention. So they are telling conservatives that our Constitution is causing our problems and we need to amend the Constitution. And they say we can only make the amendments they say we need at a convention.
Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amending our Constitution. Congress:
1. Proposes amendments, or
2. Calls a convention to propose amendments if 34 States apply for it.
The first method was used for our existing 27 amendments: Congress proposed them and sent them to the States for ratification or rejection.
Under the second method, Congress calls a convention. We have never had a convention under Article V. Such conventions are extremely dangerous. THIS is one of many articles which illustrate the danger, sets forth warnings from two of our Framers and two former US Supreme Court Justices, and explains why Delegates to a convention can NOT be controlled by State laws.
National conventions are dangerous because the Delegates have the plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification. The video by Chuck Michaelis at the bottom of THIS page explains these plenipotentiary powers. Such Delegates are the Sovereign Representatives of The People and have the power to impose a new Constitution. This has already happened in our history:
♦ At the Federal Convention of 1787, this plenipotentiary power was exercised to replace our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, with the Constitution we now have. On February 21, 1787, The Continental Congress called a convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. But instead of proposing amendments to our first Constitution, the Delegates wrote a new Constitution – the one we now have.
♦ Furthermore, the new Constitution had a new and easier mode of ratification: Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (p 8-9) provided that Amendments to the Articles had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States. But the new Constitution, drafted at the “amendments” convention of 1787, provided at Art. VII thereof that it would be ratified upon approval by only nine of the then existing 13 States.
So! Not only do Delegates to a national convention have this plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution; the precedent to do so has already been established.
Statists have been pushing for a convention for 50 years – ever since the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. They need a convention to get it imposed.
Several other Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention.
If there is a convention, the only issues will be (1) whose Constitution will be imposed by the Delegates; and (2) what new mode of ratification will be set forth in the new Constitution.
♦ The Constitution for the Newstates of America imposes a totalitarian dictatorship. Article XII, § 1 thereof provides for ratification by a Referendum called by the President. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.
♦ The Revolutionary Communist Party USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.
♦ George Soros, Marxist law professors all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder want a Marxist Constitution in place by the year 2020.
♦ The “Convention of States” project wants a “re-written” Constitution which legalizes powers the federal government has already usurped, and delegates new powers to the federal government such as total power over children. Yet they are telling conservatives that they want a convention so they can get amendments “to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”!
♦ The political establishment [both major parties] wants to transform the United States from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union: Canada, the United States, and Mexico are to merge and surrender their sovereignty to a Parliament which is to be set up over the three countries. The United States will need a new Constitution to bring about this transformation. This is being imposed on us by stealth. Read the Task Force Report of the Council on Foreign Relations HERE. And to see how the European Union is working out for the formerly sovereign nations of Europe, watch this 7.5 minute video by Pat Condell.
In the past, conservatives defeated the periodic pushes for a convention. So the statists changed tactics: Now, they are marketing it to appeal to conservatives: they are telling conservatives that a convention is the only way to rein in the federal government. These statists, some wearing conservatives’ clothing, are using the classic techniques of statists: They are not telling the truth; they are smearing their opponents; and they have divided conservatives. Conservatives who were deceived by the marketing have been induced to attack and exclude conservatives who are warning of the dangers of a convention. And they won’t let us address their groups.
Our existing Constitution really was a 5,000 year miracle. We delegated only a handful of enumerated powers to the federal government – you can see what we delegated HERE. Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – we need to restore the Constitution we already have. We begin the Restoration by reading and learning our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. And enforcing it! See, in this regard, the Tenth Amendment Center’s 2015 State of the Nullification Movement Report.
For the Love of God and Country, heed this warning.
Nov. 25, 2015; revised Dec. 23, 2015.
Share this:
PH’s Article V Convention & Nullification Events in Indiana for May, 2015
I will speak on the deadly danger of an Article V convention, and of the two remedies our Framers actually told us to use when the national government usurps power, at the following events:
Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 in Auburn, Indiana
Host: DeKalb County 9/12 Group
Location: St. Andrew Evangelical Presbyterian Church, 320 W. 4th Street, Auburn, Indiana 46706 Time: 5:30 p.m. for food; 6:30 p.m. for meeting, EDT.
See Face Book page HERE
Date: Thursday, May 14, 2015 in Elkhart, Indiana
Host: TEA-MAC with Constitutional Sheriff Brad Rogers.
Location: Trinity United Methodist Church, 2715 E. Jackson Blvd., Elkhart, Indiana 46516
Time: 7:00 p.m. EDT
Share this:
PH’s Article V Convention & Nullification Events in Kentucky & North Carolina
I will speak on the deadly danger of an Article V convention, and of the two remedies our Framers actually told us to use when the federal government usurps power, at the following events:
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 in Union, Kentucky.
Host: John Birch Society – Kentucky
Location: Triple Crown Country Club, 1 Triple Crown Blvd, Union, KY 41091
Time: Noon to 2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
This is a lunch event – lunch is $16.00
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Host: Conservatives for Guilford County (C4GC)
Location: The Oakbranch Conference Center, 23 Oak Branch Drive, Greensboro, NC 27407
Time: 6:30 – 8:30 p.m., Eastern Time.
See flyer here: https://www.facebook.com/conservatives4gc/photos/gm.342448609282620/10152684533065373/?type=1&theater
Date: Saturday, March 28, 2015 in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Host: The Rightful Remedy Conference
Location: University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Fretwell Building, Room 100
Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
On internet: http://rightfulremedyconference.com/
On face Book: https://www.facebook.com/events/386914354780520/
Love to see you at any of these events! And if you can’t come, please forward to your contacts in these areas.
Share this:
PUBLIUS HULDAH
Publius-Huldah's Blog 