The Article V Convention's Time has Come - by Mike Church

[Cowlesy]

http://www.mikechurch.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4348:the-article-v-conventions-time-has-come&catid=982:todays-lead-story&Itemid=300062

http://www.mikechurch.com/images/stories/constitution_docs/article_5_convention_small_version3.jpg


As the House vote on ObamaCare approaches and the Constitution is forevermore rendered an inconvenience to revolution the time to act and strip Congress of its power is now. We will provide more details and ticket information soon.

You will hear that Article V is dangerous in the hands of the states. Please consider what Article V has resulted in in the hands of Congress. And lest anyone be lobbied to believe that "The Founding Fathers did not intend for the States and the people to use this power, i present the history of the Article as recorded in James Madison's notes of the Federal Convention.

Mike lays out George Mason's objections to the original proposal, and even back in the 18th century, worried about a government becoming too tyrannical, and that people via the States needed a way to go about amending the Constitution for that very reason.

Visit the link to read the rest where he details out the objections and the ultimate conclusion.

I know the JBS has laid out serious and I believe good objections to an Article V convention, but if Congress continues down this path of taking over the economy, we aren't going to have a choice.

Frankly, this is another reason why we need to support our candidates for state offices when they step-up to the challenge of running for election.

[Galileo Galilei]

http://www.mikechurch.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4348:the-article-v-conventions-time-has-come&catid=982:todays-lead-story&Itemid=300062

http://www.mikechurch.com/images/stories/constitution_docs/article_5_convention_small_version3.jpg



Mike lays out George Mason's objections to the original proposal, and even back in the 18th century, worried about a government becoming too tyrannical, and that people via the States needed a way to go about amending the Constitution for that very reason.

Visit the link to read the rest where he details out the objections and the ultimate conclusion.

I know the JBS has laid out serious and I believe good objections to an Article V convention, but if Congress continues down this path of taking over the economy, we aren't going to have a choice.

Frankly, this is another reason why we need to support our candidates for state offices when they step-up to the challenge of running for election.

we'd be lucky to get the Bill-of-Rights passed at a new convention. More likely, we'd get socialism written right into the Constitution.

[Matt Collins]

See this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=218498


.

[Galileo Galilei]

When the States have had the chance to reign in federal power, they did just the opposite.

Examples include the 16th amendment (income tax) and the 17th amendment (direct election of Senators).

They also voted to ban alcohol amd give the feds the power to enforce it.

When they voted to allow women to vote, they actually did almost nothing as most of the states had already allowed it by then. This amendment did nothing to limit federal power.

The term limits for president are OK, but not really that big an issue (but at least it prevented a third term from Bill Clinton).

The 27th amendment has little effect. It is a good one as far as it goes.

With all the talk about too much federal power, its hard to find any amendments since the Bill-of-Rights that actually reduces federal power.

[FreeTraveler]

Just what we need. Get the people together, and they can crown Obama king, and do it legally.

The Constitution has failed. That said, I still prefer the legal writing of the Founding Fathers to what a mob of modern "citizens" raised on government indoctrination and the theory of free lunches would come up with.

Undoubtedly. The. Worst. Idea. Ever.

[Old Ducker]

I believe it's extremely naive to think that federal power would be restrained in any fashion by a constitutional convention. Right now we have the law, however abused and ignored, on our side. What would we do if we were stripped of that?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Galileo Galilei]

Just what we need. Get the people together, and they can crown Obama king, and do it legally.

The Constitution has failed. That said, I still prefer the legal writing of the Founding Fathers to what a mob of modern "citizens" raised on government indoctrination and the theory of free lunches would come up with.

Undoubtedly. The. Worst. Idea. Ever.

The State governments have failed as well. In my state we have a drug war, socialism, terrible public schools, a war on drunk driving, overcrowded jails, high taxes, a broken court system, too much licensing of occupations, budget deficits, and many more horrors.

[FreeTraveler]

A massive geographical organization of people who believe in free markets or limited government is a much stronger argument than a con-con.
If you can get a con-con sized group of people who believe in free markets or limited government, it's time for Agorism. Starve the beast and it must die.

[Matt Collins]

Mike Church says:
"The point is not nor has it ever been that our states are the flawless guardians of liberty. It is that the imposition of their laws is closer to the people and more likely to be amenable for redress or repeal."

.

[Kotin]

I completely disagree..

[Galileo Galilei]

Mike Church says:
"The point is not nor has it ever been that our states are the flawless guardians of liberty. It is that the imposition of their laws is closer to the people and more likely to be amenable for redress or repeal."

.

Through most of American history, state governments have been more anti-liberty than the federal government.

That's because the federal Consitution is much better writtten than most of, if not all of the State Constitutions.

I live in Wisconsin. Our Constitution is so long as to be unreadable. The process to amend it is a joke. And it enshrines public schools in the Constitution. It also allows for elections for all judges; Supreme Court, appeals, and district level. Nor does it provide for federalism, but is a consolidated government. The veto power for the governor is another joke, he can cut out words of long sentences and make up news sentences. Etc.

If the federal Constitution was like the Wisconsin State Constitution, it would have been a disaster. We would never have become a great nation.

[Galileo Galilei]

Here's the Wisconsin Constitution:

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/unannotated_wisconst.pdf

This is pretty bad. It gets worse for many states that had slavery at one time.

We also didn't have a right to bear arms until 1998, and what we have now is so vague as to be almost useless.

We also have gambling prohibited.

[osan]

Mike lays out George Mason's objections to the original proposal, and even back in the 18th century, worried about a government becoming too tyrannical, and that people via the States needed a way to go about amending the Constitution for that very reason.

Visit the link to read the rest where he details out the objections and the ultimate conclusion.

I know the JBS has laid out serious and I believe good objections to an Article V convention, but if Congress continues down this path of taking over the economy, we aren't going to have a choice.

Frankly, this is another reason why we need to support our candidates for state offices when they step-up to the challenge of running for election.

As I wrote in another post, a convention risks the worst of all disasters.

Consider this: there are those interests whose goal it is to gain effectively complete control over us. We bear witness to this every single day as those in circles of political power ignore the constitutional metes and bounds of their granted powers with ever more casual caprice and contempt for them, as well as for the electorate. With their hands on what are essentially limitless purse strings, could anyone in their right mind believe for even an instant that inconceivable sums of cash as well as promises of privilege beyond the wildest dreams of those participating in such an event would not be flowing like water? We are talking about the opportunity to acquire the entire USA, lock, stock, and barrel for what ultimately amounts to a token sum in the grander scheme.

As I mentioned before, I consider myself to be well principled. Were I at such an event and every dream I have ever had for myself and my family was staring me in the kisser in exchange for nothing more than and "aye" or a "nay", as the case may be, I cannot absolutely guarantee that I would not betray myself and everyone I know and don't know.

Consider that circumstance with people of a changeable and pragmatic nature.

And I am well confident that the 38-state ratification requirement would be simply ignored. If it were to be so, who would stop them from making the sweeping changes we all suspect would follow soon thereafter? Do we believe that the sub/urbanites would take up their rifles and go to war over it? Some might, but I am not confident that enough would. People have a very interesting way of rationalizing the outrageous when it is to their convenience or other interest to do so.

A concon would, I suspect, most likely result in the wholesale evisceration of our rights. The world as we know it would come to a sudden and very unpleasant halt. My only advice on this is to be very careful of that for which you wish.

[tpreitzel]

Rather than a Constitutional Convention, we need just one state to secede from the union. Lately, the federal government has been delivering the rationale for secession on a silver platter although legitimate justification for secession has been around since at least the Civil War. One state with a governor, legislature, and people determined to write their own destiny. * Other states will then likely follow with the concomitant possibility of forming another union along the lines of the Articles of Confederation.

* This state will be the target of every weapon imaginable so the people must be willing to sacrifice everything.

[TheTyke]

I've spent the last several years involved in state politics, and I'm telling ya, this is a TERRIBLE idea! We have to push and push and push just to get ONE or TWO liberty ideas to even be considered. And at the same time we desperately try to fight off waves of unconstitutional legislation that even our "good" reps vote for. And this is in a "good" "conservative" state.

And it is only on the authority of our current constitutions that we can make any case for our beliefs, and nettle them to death as we've been doing so far.

I usually find myself in agreement with Mike Church (and Cowsely for that matter) - but I see this matter as a deadly trap, which should be fought against with all intensity.

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - SA@TAC - Mike Church's "The Spirit of '76" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-rz7mu-GaQ&feature=player_embedded)

[Matt Collins]

The John Birch Society (JBS) has just released a new 12-minute video on YouTube, "Beware of Con-Cons: State Legislators Warn Against a Constitutional Convention."





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMg_yGlcUX4

[Pericles]

we'd be lucky to get the Bill-of-Rights passed at a new convention. More likely, we'd get socialism written right into the Constitution.
What prevents the Congress from sending such an amendment to the states in the next 30 minutes?

[sailingaway]

The people at the convention will be nominated by the very legislatures we are trying to hold back.

How do you think that is going to work out?

[Pericles]

The people at the convention will be nominated by the very legislatures we are trying to hold back.

How do you think that is going to work out?

Says who? States with the initiative can require delegates to be chosen by popular vote ...........

[sailingaway]

Says who? States with the initiative can require delegates to be chosen by popular vote ...........

'States with the initiative'. So by far the majority will be picked by legislatures. Places like California will pick by popular vote, if they choose to do so.

Same thing.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

There's no point in messing with a Con-Con. If you are going to muster for that, you might as well seceede. It is a much better strategic and realistic action. I wonder how long DC can keep the charade going before it all collapses.

[nobody's_hero]

What prevents the Congress from sending such an amendment to the states in the next 30 minutes?

Thank you. Logic FTW.

So. . .
The argument against an amendatory convention is that we might get something worse written into the Constitution, so therefore we should leave that power to propose amendments solely to the Congress in order to preserve that Document as much as possible.

[johnwk]

we'd be lucky to get the Bill-of-Rights passed at a new convention. More likely, we'd get socialism written right into the Constitution.

Your instincts are on target regarding a second constitutional convention, and James Madison would agree with you!


“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….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 to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundationsof the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville


And who would attend a convention if one were to be called? Could Madison be right? Let us take a look at what happened in New Hampshire in 1984.

During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and two legislative lobbyists….the very people who are now causing our misery!

The suit went on to charge

“there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a pubic office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”

What we need to do is enforce the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, including the Tenth Amendment, and start severely punishing judges and Justices who ignore the documented intentions in order to supplant their personal whims and fancies as being within the meaning of our Constitution.

JWK

There is no magic wand in government force which changes the definition of thievery. Those who use and rely upon government force to gain possession of the product of their neighbor’s labor are nothing more than sissy thieves, too chicken livered to confront their neighbor face to face and forcefully take what they want. This is the sum of our progressive gang … a bunch of punk whiners, incapable of doing anything productive for themselves.

[puppetmaster]

my signature says it all.....or should I say James Madison's