Article V Convention Legislation filed in Congress shows how Applications will be counted: it’s not what Lobbyists promised you

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

Legislation recently filed in Congress shows that the assurances pro-convention lobbyists have been making to State Legislators to induce them to apply to Congress for Congress to call a Convention under Article V of our Constitution are false.

These lobbyists have convinced too many State Legislators that our Framers said that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the solution is to get a convention to amend the Constitution. Our Framers never said such a silly thing!  But that is what is behind the push for an Article V convention.

Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amending the Constitution 1) Congress may propose amendments by two-thirds majority in both Houses; or 2) Congress, upon the applications of two-thirds of the State Legislatures, calls a convention where the Delegates may propose amendments. The second method has never been used – it’s dangerous!

Nevertheless, the pro-convention lobby has been assuring State Legislators that a Convention is perfectly safe because State Legislatures will control it: They will determine the amendments to be considered at the Convention; Congress can’t call a convention until Congress receives 34 applications from State Legislatures which ask for the same amendment; and Delegates to the convention may consider nothing but amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures.

If Congress calls a convention, would Congress or the Delegates to the Convention be constrained by the Lobbyists’ assurances to State Legislators?

Of course not! The Delegates – as Sovereign Representatives of The People – would have the self-evident Right, recognized by the Declaration of Independence, “to alter or to abolish” our “Form of Government.” Accordingly, Congress isn’t empowered by Article V or anything else in the Constitution to call a limited convention restricted to considering only the amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures.

And now, legislation consistent with this “self-evident Right” has been recently filed in Congress:

On July 19, 2022, Congressman Jodey Arrington of Texas introduced H.Con.Res.101, which calls a convention; and H.R. 8419, which sets forth how applications for a convention are to be counted.

These Resolutions show that the convention pushers’ assurances that Delegates to the Convention can do nothing but consider amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures, are false:

H.C.R. 101 §1(a) (1) says, “…Congress hereby calls a convention for proposing amendments…”

H.R. 8419 creates subsection (c) of 1 U.S. Code, § 106, which directs the Archivist of the United States to count all non-rescinded applications asking Congress to call a Convention; and to notify Congress of its duty to call a Convention when the Archivist receives non-rescinded applications for a Convention from two-thirds of the States.

H.R. 8419 doesn’t permit the Archivist to sort the applications by the amendments specified by State Legislatures. Instead, H.R. 8419 directs the Archivist to count all non-rescinded applications together.

One group pushing for a Convention has already admitted that Congress can “mix & match” the various applications for a convention: This group combined non-rescinded applications passed in 1789, several passed in 1861 to avert the Civil War, and during 1901 for popular election of US Senators with applications passed in recent decades for a balanced budget amendment. ¹

And the Archivist of the United States is, in effect, directed by H.R. 8419 to mix and match the various applications! If an application is non-rescinded, the Archivist is directed to count it to get to 34.

So H.C.R. 101 & H.R. 8419 really are consistent with the “self-evident right” of a People to alter or abolish their government and set up a new one. And they reveal that whoever drafted these Resolutions also understands that State Legislatures have no power to dictate what is considered by Delegates at the convention. In State Legislatures’ applications to Congress for a convention, they sometimes insist that they will control the convention (see p. 2, line 19 thru p. 7 of this application in the Pennsylvania Senate); but the Truth is that the Constitution sets forth what Congress has the power to do respecting an Article V Convention; and State Legislatures cannot change this by wishful thinking. And State Legislatures cannot dictate to Congress how Congress is to exercise a power the Constitution grants to Congress!

If Congress calls an Article V convention, you can be sure that a new Constitution will be imposed on us. ² The convention of 1787 was called “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. But the convention proposed a new Constitution which had a new mode of ratification and which created a new form of government. James Madison warned that those who secretly want a new Constitution would push for an Article V Convention under the pretext of “getting amendments”.

State Legislators need to open their eyes and see that while they are being used to get a Convention; they will have no power over the Convention; and won’t be able to do anything to stop a new Constitution with its own new mode of ratification from being imposed on us. State Legislatures must immediately rescind the applications for a convention they already sent to Congress.

Endnotes:

¹ At the time the “BBA” organization prepared their chart, the applications they counted were non-rescinded. They counted 33 States with active applications on file with Congress. But thankfully, after their Chart was published, several of the States listed on their Chart wised-up and rescinded their applications. Other States whose previous applications for a convention are still active better rescind them before the Archivist gets her hands on them!

² A member of Mark Meckler’s “COS” Legal Advisory Board, Princeton Law Professor Robert P. George, has already co-authored a new Constitution which grants massive new powers to a new federal government and imposes gun controls with red flag confiscations. Read it & tremble for your Country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pennsylvania Senators Roundtable Discussion

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

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

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

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

A bit later on, Meckler said:

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

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

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

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

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

So Robbie George’s new Constitution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look behind the Curtain

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

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

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

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

Endnotes:

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

² This is shown in these flyers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Article V convention: a globalist coup to impose a new Constitution

Joanna Martin, J.D. (Publius Huldah) warns of what’s really behind the push for an Article V convention: to move us into the New World Order or impose a Communist dictatorship.

Presented to the Buncombe County Republican Party in Asheville, North Carolina on May 25, 2021.

Here are the Exhibits referred to in the presentation:

Click to access exhibits-to-presentation-in-north-carolina-during-may-25.pdf

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

By Publius Huldah

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

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

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

1. The fabricated George Mason quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Hamilton’s warnings were brushed aside.

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

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

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

Beware of what you ask for.

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

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

Article V, US Constit., says:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing amendments…” [italics added]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heed the warning of the great statesman Daniel Webster:

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

Endnotes:

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

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

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

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

Alan Keyes and Publius Huldah connect the dots behind the push for an Article V convention

Listen and learn the connection between the USMCA “Trade Agreement”, the North American Union, an Article V Convention, and red flag gun confiscation laws. There is a coordinated plan to take our Constitution away from us. But you can help stop the Globalists.

So you think Trump wants to get rid of the Fed?

By Publius Huldah

Yes he does. The Federal Reserve System is collapsing due to the inherent instability of a monetary system, not based on gold & silver, but on the Fed’s “right” to create “money” out of thin air ¹ which it then lends to the US Treasury (and is added to the national debt), ² in order to fund the federal government’s massive, grotesquely unconstitutional, and out of control spending.

This process of allowing the Fed to create “money” out of thin air with nothing behind it has been going on since 1933, when the promise (set forth in §16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in gold was revoked as to domestic holders; ³ and culminated during 1971, when redemption of the Notes in gold to international holders was also suspended.⁴

Once the statutory promise to back Federal Reserve Notes with gold was rescinded, the sky was the limit on how much fiat “money” the Fed could create, lend to the US Treasury (and be added to the national debt), in order to fund still more massive, grotesquely unconstitutional, and out of control spending by the federal government.

Now we have reached the point where the federal deficits are so huge and increasing at such a furious pace that our entire fiat “money” financial system is coming apart. ⁵

So what are we going to do about it? Does Trump want to get rid of the Fed so we can return to the constitutional money system described in Point 2 below?

Trump may say that he wants to return to the gold standard; ⁶ but the USMCA “Trade Agreement” he signed doesn’t do that. The Globalists’ Plan, which is advanced by USMCA, is to ratchet up the fiat “money” system created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, from a national to a global level with a central bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) managing and enforcing an international monetary system. And as Edwin Vieira, Ph.D., J.D., warned 8 years ago [here]:

“The true perversity of the present situation lies in the indication … that [a] scheme for a new supra-national monetary order will be sold to a doubting world by attaching some sort of “gold standard” to it….”

1. The IMF and the international fiat “money” system

The IMF is an institution in the United Nations system.

The IMF has already created (it was done during 1969), out of thin air, an international fiat currency called “special drawing right” (SDR). The stated purpose of SDRs was to increase liquidity in settling international accounts by making short term loans to member countries to cover their balance of payments, and other temporary financial problems.

USMCA Art. 33.1 shows that the IMF is to monitor our compliance with the IMF’s Articles of Agreement (please let that sink in).

◊ Article III of the IMF Articles of Agreement provides that the IMF assigns “quotas” to members [that would include the United States], representing the amount the member must pay into the IMF [members may pay their “subscriptions” using their own unbacked currencies]; and in exchange, they get an equivalent amount of SDRs [also unbacked by any precious metal] issued by the IMF.

◊ Article IV, Sections 1-3 of the IMF Articles of Agreement provide that the IMF is to manage the development of an international monetary system [to which we shall be subject]; and is to oversee the member countries’ [that includes the United States] underlying economic and financial conditions and policies in order to promote “sound economic growth” and “financial and economic stability”. I.e., the IMF is going to manage our economy.

USMCA Chapter 17. Financial Services harmonizes the Banking, Insurance, and Investment Practices of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. This harmonization removes previously existing barriers to global regulation of those areas and to merging regional currencies into a global currency. ⁷

As anyone who reads USMCA can see, the purpose of USMCA is to remove barriers to global regulation of all the areas covered by USMCA, and to advance development of a new global “money” system which will replace our collapsing Federal Reserve System.

Look at the Table of Contents for USMCA: All those areas: agriculture, textiles and apparel goods, customs administration, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, telecommunications, intellectual property (patents), labor (which includes immigration and gender & sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace), the environment, etc., are to be made subject to global regulation.

And we exchange our fiat “money” for the IMF’s fiat “money”; the United States loses control over our monetary system; and the IMF, instead of the Fed, will manage the new monetary system – and our economy.

Trump may give grand speeches before the United Nations saying he opposes globalism and supports nationalism, but the USMCA “Trade Agreement” he signed moves us into global government. ⁸

And the claim that USMCA is about getting favorable tariff agreements for the United States is the Biggest Lie since the Garden of Eden.

2. What our Constitution provides about money

Our Framers created a Constitution which delegates only “few and defined” powers to the federal government. This one page chart lists those powers.

Accordingly, except for national defense, our federal government doesn’t need much money to fund its constitutional powers. So our Framers created a taxing system wherein the funds needed to operate the federal government were raised by the import tariffs and excise taxes authorized at Article I, §8, cl. 1, and by the apportioned direct assessments on the States authorized at Article I, §2, cl. 3. ⁹

Congress is also authorized at Article I, §8, cl. 2, to borrow money on the credit of the United States; but our Framers intended borrowing money to be restricted to funding national defense. ¹⁰

Our Framers also established a money system based on gold & silver:

◊ Article I, §8, cl. 5: “The Congress shall have Power …To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,…”

◊ Article I, §10, cl. 1: “No State shall … coin Money; emit Bills of Credit ¹¹; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”

Accordingly, during 1792, Congress passed an Act establishing a mint and set the standards for the amounts of gold and silver in our coins. Congress took so seriously the purity of our coins that §19 of the Act provided the death penalty for debasement of coins. During 1793, Congress passed an Act regulating the value of foreign coins.

A money system based on gold & silver and a limited taxing system were perfect for a federal government of “few and defined” powers. Furthermore, such systems – if adhered to – would have prevented the emergence of the totalitarian socialist regulatory welfare state we have today.

3. Why the Federal Reserve System was established

“…A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project…” James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

Why does Madison refer to paper money as an “improper or wicked project”? Because, among other evils, paper money provides governments with access to unlimited amounts of credit – and that is what was needed to finance the totalitarian socialist regulatory welfare state we have today.

When the Progressives ¹² took over our Country during the early 1900s, they needed lots of “money” to fund their unconstitutional regulatory and “welfare” schemes. But the federal government didn’t have enough gold and silver coins to fund the regulatory welfare state they wanted. So the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913 to set up a central bank – the “Fed” – which (thanks to fractional reserve banking) would have the power to supply the federal government with the “money” it wanted. ¹³

So it was access to this credit which enabled the federal government to exceed its constitutional limits.

With this easy credit, the federal government was enabled to “buy” the States by giving them fiat “money” to implement unconstitutional federal programs: State governments literally sold the retained powers of the States and the People to the federal government. A particularly malignant example is U.S. Senator Marco Rubio’s “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019” (“red flag” law), which appropriates $20 Million for each of FY 2019-2023 to pay to States and Indian Tribes which pass the “red flag” legislation set forth in Rubio’s bill. If a Respondent, whose arms have been taken from him in an ex parte hearing [i.e., a hearing Respondent wasn’t notified about until after the Order had been issued to seize his arms], wants his arms back, he must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he does NOT pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or others by having arms in his possession.

Rubio’s bill puts the burden of proof on the Respondent. For eons in Anglo/American Jurisprudence, it has been the task of the government to PROVE GUILT. But Rubio would reverse that and require Respondents to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. This is evil.

Rubio’s bill is also unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government; and it violates the “Privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV, §2; violates the 2^nd Amendment; and violates the “due process” clauses of the 5^th Amendment and §1 of the 14^th Amendment.

How many States and Indian Tribes will surrender their Citizen’s Right to THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE by passing Rubio’s “red flag” law in order to get the “money” from the fed gov’t? ¹⁴

If we had preserved the monetary system set up by our Constitution, the federal government wouldn’t have been able to become the totalitarian monster it is today. If you want a limited government, don’t give it unlimited “money”.

4. What States can do

In Part 4 of his “A CROSS OF GOLD” series at sub point [3] and in Part 5, Dr. Edwin Vieira shows how States can protect their Citizens from disaster by setting up an alternative gold currency.

The Tenth Amendment Center has model legislation for States to take some steps in the right direction: See THIS under the heading, “End the Fed from the Bottom Up”.

Open your eyes, Americans. Time is running out.

Update:  As of March 26, 2020, the fed no longer requires depository institutions to maintain ANY reserves:  https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

Endnotes:

¹ See excerpt from testimony before Congress on Sep. 30, 1941 by the then Governor of the Fed.

² Robert P. Murphy, Is Our Money Based on Debt?

³ HERE is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. §16 promised redemption of the Federal Reserve Notes in gold. During 1935, §16 was amended to remove that promise: HERE is the amendment, codified as 12 USC §411.

⁴ See 31 USC §5118.

⁵ The Fed Has Lost Control

⁶ The quiet campaign to reinstate the gold standard is getting louder

⁷ See Joan Veon HERE:

“Globalization is the process of breaking through the protective barriers designed to separate the nation-states from the world system. Between 1944 and 2008 [Bretton Woods I & Bretton Woods II] all the nation-state barriers have been removed with exception of the national regulatory laws governing financial institutions, insurance companies, mortgages, and Wall Street. The real purpose of BWII is to establish the framework for a global regulatory system. This also presents the possibility of merging all regional currencies into a global currency.” [italics added] You can also see her video HERE.

⁸ See: USMCA and the Quest for a North American Union and The USMCA “Trade Agreement” violates our Constitution and sets up Global Government.

⁹ HERE is the Act of 1813 where Congress laid a direct tax of $3 Million upon the United States. It shows how Congress apportioned the tax (based on population) as required by Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3. (See page 93 of the linked pdf edition.)

¹⁰ In Federalist No. 41 (5^th para up from bottom), Madison says:

“The power of levying and borrowing money, being the sinew of that which is to be exerted in the national defense, is properly thrown into the same class with it. This power, also, has been examined already with much attention, and has, I trust, been clearly shown to be necessary, both in the extent and form given to it by the Constitution. …”

¹¹ Congress is not authorized to create paper money. In “A CROSS OF GOLD”, Dr. Edwin Vieira says:

[at Part 2]: “…America’s Founding Fathers, realists all, denominated redeemable paper currency as “bills of credit”. They knew that such bills’ values in gold or silver always depended upon the issuers’ credit—that is, ultimately, the issuers’ honesty and ability to manage their financial affairs.…” [boldface added]

[at Part 3]: “…every form of “redeemable currency” put out through the Federal Reserve System is, by definition, a governmental “bill of credit”, which Congress has no authority to emit, directly or indirectly.” [boldface added]

When, in 1933, the promise to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in gold was repudiated, the federal government dishonored their “bills of credit”. We should have listened to our Founding Fathers.

¹² In the 1880s, the Fabian Society was founded in England. Fabians advocate a gradual transition to socialism [as opposed to violent revolution]. They also hold that the elite – and they are the elite – should run everything [as opposed to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.] In the early 1900s, Fabians took over our Country – here they went by the name, “Progressives”. Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson were Progressives; and the Fabian socialist ideology has dominated our Country ever since.

¹³ For an education in the basics of the Fed, fractional reserve banking, and the creation of “money”, see Robert P. Murphy’s article at endnotes 1 & 2; and Dr. Edwin Vieira’s fascinating explanations of these issues in his “A CROSS OF GOLD” series HERE. Dr. Vieira also shows why we must not accept a new global fiat currency and central bank to replace the collapsing Federal Reserve System.

¹⁴ And all that money used to bribe States and Indian Tribes to pass Rubio’s “red flag” law, will be added to the national debt.

Alan Keyes and Publius Huldah discuss the Constitution and Judicial “supremacy”

How to nullify Roe v. Wade

To see how the US Supreme Court violated our Constitution when they decided Roe v. Wade, see Why Supreme Court opinions are not the “Law of the Land”, and how to put federal judges in their place

under the subheading, 5. How the Supreme Court violated the “arising under” clause to hear cases they have no constitutional authority to hear.

Yes! Trump has constitutional authority to secure our Southern Border

By Publius Huldah

Instead of reading our Constitution and seeing what it says, Americans get their legal advice from what “everybody says”.

Now, they are hearing about “emergency powers”, and are in a tail spin. Did Congress’ “Emergency Powers Act” delegate to the President the power to call whatever he wants an “emergency” & then do whatever he deems best?

Our focus shouldn’t be on what can be called an “emergency”; but what does our Constitution authorize the federal government to do (if anything) with respect to the hot topic of the day?

Let’s look at Migration (immigration) in the context of the hordes of aliens storming thru our Southern Border. What does our Constitution say about it?

Art. I, § 9, clause 1, delegates power over Migration (immigration) to Congress. So Congress is to make the immigration laws; & the President, as Chief Executive, is to put Congress’ laws into effect.

Art. IV, § 4 REQUIRES the United States to protect each of the States against Invasion.

Art. I, § 8, clauses 15 & 16, authorize the calling up of the Militia for 3 purposes: to execute the Laws of the Union; to suppress Insurrections; and repel Invasions.

Art. II, § 3 authorizes the President to recommend to Congress such measures as he deems necessary and expedient; to convene Congress on extraordinary occasions; and requires him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed (that includes the immigration laws.)

Art. II, § 2, provides that the President is CINC of the armed forces. He is CINC of the Militia when it is called into active service of the United States. As noted above, the Militia may be called into active service to enforce federal laws and to repel invasions.

So those are the Constitutional Provisions which apply to the invasion of our Southern Border.

 

America is finished if we don’t control our Southern Border. Congress and the President have clear constitutional authority – actually, they have the DUTY – to control our Southern Border.

The best way the control the Southern Border is to build a wall. [I know from personal observation during the Cold War that the wall the Soviets built between East & West Germany prevented people in the East from escaping to the West.]

What if Congress refuses to fund the wall? Must the President tell the American People, “Well, I tried. But my hands are tied. You better get ready for civil war.”

No! Art. IV, § 4 imposes on the United States the Duty to protect each of the States against invasion. If Congress won’t do it, the President must. He is Chief Executive of the United States. For him to refuse to act for the reason that Congress won’t fund the wall would be as contemptible as the Husband and Father who refuses to get armed to protect his Family because the government says he can’t be armed.

So, the President may solicit donations from the American People for funds, labor, and construction materials, to build a wall.

About calling forth the Militia to enforce federal immigration laws and repel invasions

We no longer have the Militia provided for at Art. I, §8, clauses 15 & 16.

During 1903, the American People and their federal and state legislators (who had mainlined on Progressivism) went along with federalizing the Militia. This was done with the grotesquely unconstitutional federal Dick Act of 1903. ¹ The Dick Act unlawfully converted the Militia into the National Guard, which is an adjunct of the federal military.

If we still had the “Militia of the several States”, it would be obvious that the Militia should be called into national service to repel the invasion coming through our Southern Border by enforcing federal immigration laws.

But since we no longer have the Militia, we must rely on our “armed forces”.  Pursuant to 10 US Code Sections 252 & 253, the President may send armed forces into the States on our Southern Border to build a Wall in order to enforce federal immigration laws. ²

And if Push comes to Shove, the President has the Clear Duty to protect our Southern Border and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

Remember – the Questions are always: “What does the Constitution authorize” & “What Duties does the Constitution impose on the federal government?”

There is no substitute for reading the Constitution for yourself, Article by Article, and then seeing how the Articles all work together – hand in glove. It really was a 6,000 year miracle.

Endnotes:

¹ That the Dick Act passed shows that Americans of 100 years ago were also ignorant, short-sighted, and foolish.

²  Congress should also eliminate all “welfare” benefits to the invaders.  We have been using “welfare” as a magnet to lure invaders into this Country!  How stupid is that?

And I trust you already understand that all federal ‘welfare’ benefits are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.

Revised: August 21, 2020.