Mt. Vernon Assembly is working 24/7 to convene a constitutional convention!

[johnwk]

SEE: Reflections on the Mt. Vernon Assembly (http://www.conventionofstates.com/news/reflections-mt-vernon-assembly)

By Michael Farris

"We are beginning to reach critical mass in our efforts to use Article V of the Constitution to rein in the power of the federal government. The Mount Vernon Assembly is one of the major steps in that effort."

Read Michael’s article and one immediately detects he has no intention to have a productive and respectful discussion on the issue by immediately demeaning his opponents, claiming they have” increased both the loudness and shrillness of their long-standing claims…”

Michael continues: ”Here is why their arguments are doomed to fail: 1. They are based on faulty history. The original Constitution was not adopted as the result of a runaway convention. Their entire argument is premised on this fallacy. 2. They have to convince state legislators that we can't trust state legislators.

Faulty history? The truth is, the convention ignored the agreed upon purpose for which the convention of 1787 was called which was to revise the Article of Confederation to make them adequate to the exigencies of the Union. As a matter of historical fact three of the States [New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York] specifically expressed limiting the convention for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. They did not authorize drawing up an entirely new Constitution during the convention. And this is what is referred to as a “runaway convention”.


Getting back to the claim of “faulty history”, Michael’s assertion is immediately proved to be false by reading from The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 1] which documents the limitations to be followed by the Convention’s Delegates. New Hampshire’s being crystal clear on the purpose being for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.


STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. In the Year of our Lord 1787.

An Act for appointing Deputies from this State to the Convention proposed to be holden in the City of Philadelphia, in May, 1787, for the Purpose of revising the federal Constitution


By his Excellency, James Bowdoin, Esq., Governor of the Commonwealth of [L. S.]Massachusetts.

To the Hon. Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King, and Culeb Strong, Esqrs., Greeting:

Whereas Congress did, on the 21st day of February, A. D. 1787, resolve, "That, in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient that, on the second Monday in May next, a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several states, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the states, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union;" And whereas the General Court have constituted and appointed you their delegates, to attend and represent this commonwealth in the said proposed Convention, and have, by a resolution of theirs of the 10th of March last, requested me to commission you for that purpose;--


And so, the truth is, there was, what many call, a “runaway convention” which decided to draw up an entirely new Constitution and government, and it ignored the limitation of merely revising the Articles of Confederation as instructed.


Michael also claims opponents of a convention would ”have to convince state legislators that we can't trust state legislators.” That is not the argument Michael. The argument is, should “we the people” really trust state legislatures to convene a constitutional convention when every single one has working in concert with our federal government to undermine and subjugate the defined and limited powers granted to our federal government? Which state legislature has not accepted federal funds in return for imposing federal mandates upon the people within their states which are not within the defined and limited powers granted to Congress? How many states have state pensions which are unfunded and a ticking time bomb? Would state legislatures not welcome the federal government assuming these debts in return for additional powers being granted to our federal government? Let us not forget that part of adopting our existing constitution was made possible by having the federal government assume the various state Revolutionary War debt!


What is very scary about the call for a second constitutional convention is, there are a number of very, very dangerous and well-funded groups behind this call. And they refuse and/or avoid public events in which a spokesman of theirs is paired with an opponent for a spirited debate concerning the pros and cons, and very real dangers of calling a second constitutional convention. For example, Glenn Beck had State Senator David Long on today to sell the calling of a convention with no one knowledgeable to put his feet to the fire. And this seems to be the pattern being followed. The conservative opposition to calling a convention seems to be shut out of the debate, and this in itself is cause for alarm.

In any event, James Madison warned us about calling a convention under Article V as follows:


“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 partisans 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 foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable 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

Do we really want to convene a convention to give those who now hold federal and state power the opportunity to make constitutional, that which is now un-constitutional? Do the countless miseries we now suffer spring from defects in our existing Constitution, or are each traceable to the lack of the America People rising up and demanding their existing Constitution and its legislative intent be strictly observed and enforced by those who hold federal and state power? And who would be in control of a convention should one be called? Would it not be the very snakes who now cause our sufferings?

JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

[Christian Liberty]

I may be going to PHC next year, but this is a really, really crappy idea, I think. Michael Farris has too much faith in people.

[69360]

It's a horrible idea. It would end up a Pandora's box with all sorts of nastiness enacted, you could see the bill of rights repealed and more.

[mrsat_98]

you could see the bill of rights repealed and more.

Don't you mean "repealed again" ?

[WM_in_MO]

http://duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/stahp.jpg

Jesus christ stop trying to literally let them re-write the constitution. Holy shit.

You really want this current crop to go in and have their way with it?

[johnwk]

I may be going to PHC next year, but this is a really, really crappy idea, I think. Michael Farris has too much faith in people.


I researched this issue very carefully back in 1985 and I can’t see any safe way to convene a convention without providing the opportunity to our corrupted state legislatures and our despotic federal government to rewrite our Constitution and undo the miracle our Founders left us.

Who would be in charge of deciding the constitutionality of the doings of the convention? Would it not be our very own despotic Supreme Court?

And who do you think will attend a convention should one be called? Would it not be the very snakes who now cause our sufferings? Could Madison be right, and that every snake on earth including ACORN, would seize the opportunity and find their way into the convention to advance interests not in the general welfare of the United States? Let us take a look at what has already happened in New Hampshire in 1984 when a convention was called to amend its state constitution.

During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention to alter its State Constitution, 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 there were two legislative lobbyists….the very people who are now causing our misery! Do you have confidence in these sorts of people who would most certainly find their way into the convention?

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.”



I wonder what Michael Farris would say regarding the selection process of those who will attend an Article V convention. And how many delegates does each state get to send to the convention? Will it be by a rule of apportionment in which our “progressive” states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention because of their large population size? And if they do, could they not steamroll their progressive agenda through the convention and force it upon the entire United States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed for ratification or a mere nine states as was done to make our existing Constitution effective?

The fact is, there is a compelling argument to be made that the above mentioned socialist/progressive states would indeed be entitled to a representation at the convention in proportion to their population size! Does our Constitution not set a new rule by which representation shall be by the rule of apportionment which overruled the Articles of Confederation’s equal representation rule? And who will get to decide this question if raised? As pointed out above, would it not be our existing tyrannical Supreme Court?

Finally, it seems to be continually asserted by those calling for a convention that there is no way to restore our Constitution’s original provisions without calling an Article V convention. But that assertion is factually incorrect! The truth is undoing what our despotic federal government has done to us merely requires the people to rise up and demand such change! See our Constitution’s 21st Amendment! And then study how the people took it upon themselves to get the 18th Amendment repealed. The following photos tell the tail! CLICK HERE (https://www.google.com/search?q=photo+we+want+beer+repeal+prohibition&biw=989&bih=513&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=bRNHUp71OJHg8ASl-4CABw&ved=0CCwQsAQ)

The future of our country is in the hands of the American people, but they must rise to the occasion, and take back their country from their corrupted state legislatures and our despotic federal government. And that process could begin this coming election by asking those running for office if they will support the following House/Senate Joint Resolution:

House/Senate Joint Resolution

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.[/size]


Is our existing and corrupted socialist/progressive tax system not the source of power used to enslave America's productive people and rob them of the wealth they have created? Would ending this horrid system of taxation and restoring our Constitution's original tax plan not be a major step in taking back our country?



I believe the above Resolution would give America’s working people and business owners something to unite under and then work to elect members to Congress this coming election who will make the adoption of this proposal part of their campaign.



JWK




If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

[Travlyr]

I am not sure why anybody would bother with another constitutional convention. History has proved that whoever owns the gold makes the rules and buys the thugs with guns to enforce them. Constitutions don't limit psychopathic rulers actions.

[johnwk]

I am not sure why anybody would bother with another constitutional convention. History has proved that whoever owns the gold makes the rules and buys the thugs with guns to enforce them. Constitutions don't limit psychopathic rulers actions.

What they are up to is to make constitutional the tyranny they now rain down upon the people! CLICK HERE (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm) to read the new constitution they have in mind and have been working on for over forty years. Now that they are fully entrenched in our federal government and in our state governments as well, they are making their bold attempt to rewrite our Constitution from top to bottom!.


JWK


"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals, and now his “promise zones”] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

[johnwk]

.

If you have a gut reaction that calling a constitutional convention under Article V is a dangerous idea, you may want to learn about those who are behind the idea. See: Exposing the Convention of the States (COS) as an Article V Constitutional Convention … and Who’s Behind It All, including Soros & Levin (http://securetherepublic.com/main/exposing-the-convention-of-the-states-cos-as-an-article-v-constitutional-convention/)

JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

[dillo]

A constitutional convention is a horrible idea, imagine Rick Perry writing the bill of rights

[Occam's Banana]

A constitutional convention is a horrible idea, imagine Rick Perry writing the bill of rights

"Let's see, um ... free speech ... keep and bear arms ... and, um ... what's that third one?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyMosJdIfdo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyMosJdIfdo

[gwax23]

Anyone got any information on their proposed constitution?

[johnwk]

Anyone got any information on their proposed constitution?

It could be the Constitution for the Newstates of America (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm) which the promoters of a constitutional convention cooked up over forty years ago!


JWK



At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

[Zippyjuan]

A Constitutional Convention can only propose amendments to the US Constitution. Any or each of those amendments must be aproved by 2/3rds of the states to take effect. And you need two thirds of the states to agree to call for a Convention in the first place.

[Occam's Banana]

A Constitutional Convention can only propose amendments to the US Constitution. Any or each of those amendments must be aproved by 2/3rds of the states to take effect. And you need two thirds of the states to agree to call for a Convention in the first place.

And the original Constitutional Convention was only supposed to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

But things actually worked out somewhat differently ...

[ClydeCoulter]

And the original Constitutional Convention was only supposed to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

But things actually worked out somewhat differently ...

Yes, and we don't want that to happen again.


It could be the Constitution for the Newstates of America (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm) which the promoters of a constitutional convention cooked up over forty years ago!


JWK


That constitution sucks!

I just read through as much of it as I could stomach.
Right about here:

Atricle II SECTION 5. The electoral apparatus of the Newstates of America shall be available to them, and they may be allotted funds under rules agreed to by the national Overseer; but expenditures may not be made by or for any candidate except they be approved by the Overseer; and requirements of residence in a voting district shall be no longer than thirty days.
Wohooo, top down heavy!

[gwax23]

It could be the Constitution for the Newstates of America (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm) which the promoters of a constitutional convention cooked up over forty years ago!


JWK



At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.



Terrible just terrible.

[Zippyjuan]

And the original Constitutional Convention was only supposed to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

But things actually worked out somewhat differently ...

A lot harder to try to pull off something like that today with modern communications. The country was just starting to take shape back then.

[ClydeCoulter]

A lot harder to try to pull off something like that today with modern communications. The country was just starting to take shape back then.

Bullshit. There were plenty of communications, it didn't happen over night.

Look at this country and the number of dependents. You could sell (well, give) them anything.

And, if enough states were to call for it, they would not let it fail, one way or the other, to save face.

If there aren't enough people in the US that understand the Constitution well enough to elect good member of congress and hold their feet to it...well...what's to stop anything.

[Zippyjuan]

Back then, news travelled by horses. It sometimes took weeks for information from Philladelphia to reach some of the other colonies. Today news can travel in fractions of a second to everybody. People had no idea what was going on. And even that deal had to be agreed to by two thirds of the states before it took effect. Try to get two thirds of the states to agree on anything today.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html

May 25, 1787, Freshly spread dirt covered the cobblestone street in front of the Pennsylvania State House, protecting the men inside from the sound of passing carriages and carts. Guards stood at the entrances to ensure that the curious were kept at a distance. Robert Morris of Pennsylvania, the "financier" of the Revolution, opened the proceedings with a nomination--Gen. George Washington for the presidency of the Constitutional Convention. The vote was unanimous. With characteristic ceremonial modesty, the general expressed his embarrassment at his lack of qualifications to preside over such an august body and apologized for any errors into which he might fall in the course of its deliberations.

[Occam's Banana]

A lot harder to try to pull off something like that today with modern communications. The country was just starting to take shape back then.


Back then, news travelled by horses. It sometimes took weeks for information from Philladelphia to reach some of the other colonies. Today news can travel in fractions of a second to everybody. People had no idea what was going on.

I don't see how the "communications" angle is really relevant. The original Constitutional Convention was conducted entirely in secret - without any outside communications at all. All the delegates were sworn to secrecy (they even papered over the windows of the chambers in which the proceedings took place). Communication with the "other colonies" (states, actually - they were no longer colonies at that point) over the course of the Convention was simply not a factor, one way or the other. This is why Mrs. Powell, a resident of Philadelphia, asked Benjamin Franklin at the conclusion of the Convention, "Well, Doctor, what have you given us: a Republic or a Monarchy?" - to which Franklin famously replied, "A Republic ... if you can keep it!."

IOW: Even the residents of Philadelphia did not know the most basic things about what the Convention had done until it was over.

After they were done, the draft of the Constitution produced by the Convention was presented in what would be its final form. There was a lot of debate & discussion about it afterwards (see the Federalist Papers, etc.) - but these debates & discussions did not result in any changes prior to ratification. (The Bill of Rights was added later). In other words, the product of the Convention was pretty much a textbook defintion of a fait accompli.

Some folks knew that something not quite "kosher" was afoot. Upon hearing of plans for a convention to consider amendments to the Articles of Confederation, Patrick Henry famously declared that he "smelt a rat" - and his suspicions of a significant "tending toward monarchy" (i.e., centralization) proved to be very well-founded.

So it is not at all unreasonable to regard today's calls for another Constitutional Convention with a gimlet eye. I myself do not think that such a convention is likely, except perhaps under "special" circumstances (whatever those might be). But it is precisely under such circumstances that shenanigans are most apt to manifest.

IOW: I give low odds for another Constitutional Convention happening - but if it does, all bets are off. Such a thing might turn out well, or it might turn out quite badly. But it would be foolish to be complacent or sanguine about it. And there certainly does not seem to be any reason to think that another Constitutional Convention would be any more "open" or "transparent" than the original.

[gwax23]

Unless it plans to return to something along the lines of the Articles of Confederation then it shouldnt be supported.

[johnwk]

.

Let us look at some of the deceptive propaganda put out by the Convention of States project (http://www.conventionofstates.com/learn-why-convention-safe) [COS].

COS writes:

"Here are the facts:

1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge. There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states for a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject.

2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment, and the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero."


The truth is, Article V is very clear that when a convention is called, it is for the specific purpose of “proposing Amendments” [that’s plural] see Article V! Additionally, the Convention of 1787 was called for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. The Delegates to the Convention were not authorized to draw up an entirely new Constitution which in fact they decided to do. And after doing so, the Convention decided to also ignore the Articles of Confederation's requirement that a unanimous consent be obtained to alter the Articles. They changed that requirement to an approval by a mere nine states to put into effect the new government and new Constitution they created.

Seems to me the COS project has a very real problem listing “the facts”, in addition to their pure speculation that the number of states needed to approve the Convention’s doings, if one were called, would be 38 and not changed by the Delegates as happened during the Convention of 1787.

The COS project continues:

3. Improper changes to the process can be legally challenged by state legislators. The Supreme Court has held that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it changed the rules of the process in midstream. See, Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C. Idaho 1981) (vacated on the ground of mootness.) CSG’s Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, was lead counsel for Washington state legislators in that litigation—the last major Article V case in U.S. history.

What the COS glosses over here is, we are not talking about the Supreme Court of 1981. We are talking about our current tyrannical Supreme Court which recently held Obamacare is constitutional, indicating Congress has been vested with a power to enter the States and dictate the people’s medical and health care decisions and choices, which has never been approved by an appropriate amendment to our Constitution.

Finally, the COS writes:

4. There is absolutely no historical precedent for a runaway convention. Many opponents of a convention of the states make the historically false allegation that our Constitution was adopted as the result of an illegal runaway convention. Such an argument was invented by the enemies of the Constitution and is unsupported by historical fact. (See “Was the Constitution Illegally Adopted?” by Michael Farris

Illegal runaway convention, historically false allegation?

The truth is, the convention ignored the agreed upon purpose for which the convention of 1787 was called which was to revise the Article of Confederation and to make them adequate to the exigencies of the Union. There was no call to draw up an entirely new government and new constitution. As a matter of historical fact three of the States [New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York] specifically expressed limiting the convention for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. The States did not authorize drawing up an entirely new Constitution and new government during the convention. These are the historical facts! Was it “illegal” or a “runaway convention”? Those questions are irrelevant and are straw man arguments intentionally referenced to distract the reader from the historical facts and what actually happened during the convention of 1787. It is a stupid debating trick commonly used by dishonorable people when the facts do not fit their agenda!


JWK


"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

[johnwk]

.
At the Convention of States Project's website, and under their Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.conventionofstates.com/learn-frequently-asked-questions) the first question presented and then answered is:

Why Do We Want to Call a Convention of States?

“Washington, D.C., is broken. The federal government is spending this country into the ground, seizing power from the states and taking liberty from the people. It’s time American citizens took a stand and made a legitimate effort to curb the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason insisted that the States be given the power to amend the Constitution to curb abuses by Washington, D.C. The Founders gave us the solution for today. It is time to use their solution.”

The problem is indeed identified by the Convention of States project. Our federal government is usurping power not granted and trampling upon the inalienable rights of the American People. A recent example being the passage of Obamacare by Congress and the Supreme Court engaging in judicial tyranny when upholding Congress’ legislative tyranny, not to mention the president’s willful usurping legislative power and imposing his own version of Obamacare upon the people.



And to curb this assault upon the People’s constitutionally limited system of government, the Convention of States project comes to the people’s rescue and suggests they forgo rising up and demanding an adherence to their written Constitution. The Convention of States project’s solution is to take the people out of the equation and find their remedy in our corrupted state governments, our tyrannical Supreme Court and a despotic Congress. Are these not the actors who would be in total charge of a convention should one be called? Would calling a convention under Article V not give them the “legal opportunity” to make constitutional the tyranny which is now rained down upon the people?


One must ask, who would actually attend a convention should one be called? Would it not be the very snakes who now cause our sufferings? Could James Madison be right, and that an election into the convention " would be courted by the most violent partisans 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 foundations of the fabric...? ___ See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville

Let us take a look at what has already happened in New Hampshire in 1984 when a convention was called to amend its state constitution.

During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention to alter its State Constitution, 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 there were 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 public 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.”

Now, let us take a look at who is behind the calling of a constitutional convention. See: Exposing the Convention of the States (COS) as an Article V Constitutional Convention … and Who’s Behind It All, including Soros & Levin (http://securetherepublic.com/main/exposing-the-convention-of-the-states-cos-as-an-article-v-constitutional-convention/)

JWK


At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

[johnwk]

.
At the Convention of States Project's website, and under their Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.conventionofstates.com/learn-frequently-asked-questions) the second question presented and then answered is:

What is a Convention of States?

"A convention of states is a convention called by the state legislatures for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. They are given power to do this under Article V of the Constitution. It is not a constitutional convention. It cannot throw out the Constitution because its authority is derived from the Constitution."

The Convention of States Project is absolutely correct that when a convention is called, it is for the specific purpose of “proposing Amendments” [that’s plural], see Article V! But their opinion which then follows is not based upon historical facts and precedent. The fact is, the Convention of 1787, which is the precedent we must rely upon, was called for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. The Delegates to the Convention were not authorized to draw up an entirely new Constitution and new government which they took it upon themselves to do. And after doing so, the Convention also decided to ignore the Articles of Confederation's requirement that a unanimous consent be obtained by the States to alter the Articles. The Convention changed that requirement to an approval by a mere nine states to put into effect the new government and new Constitution they created.

And so, it is disingenuous for the Convention of States Project to make the claim a convention, if called, “cannot throw out the Constitution”. It certainly does have the constitutionally authorized power to propose countless “amendments” which in effect could eviscerate our entire Constitution and created a new system of government if adopted. And judging from historical precedent, the Convention may also propose a method of adoption different than what our existing Constitution currently requires.

It should also be noted that a Justice of the Supreme Court has already confirmed the autonomy of a convention should one be called. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote to Phyllis Schlafly in 1988, regarding another convention: “ I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’


JWK


"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

[johnwk]

Since it has been established that calling a convention under Article V presents a number of dangers and would place the fate of our nation's future in the hands of the very snakes in our federal and state governments who now cause our sufferings, I think it is appropriate to offer our founder's solution which would place the American People in charge of their own destiny. The only question is, will the American people rise to the occasion and confront those who hold federal and state power who use it to circumvent our written constitutions, federal and state, while plundering the wealth which America’s productive citizens and businesses have created?

A suggested solution

Step No. 1, Draw up a formal petition of grievances [See the First Amendment] listing our federal government’s intolerable acts such as imposing Obamacare on the people without their consent via a constitutional amendment.

Step No. 2. Organize a multi-million man march on Washington and formally present copies of the petition of grievances to the President, our House and Senate, and our Supreme Court.

Step no. 3. Will depend upon the action or inaction taken by our federal government and if a large enough segment of our population is willing to take back their government from those who now ignore our written Constitution and impose their will upon the people without the people's consent.

Indeed, these are the steps our Founders took to remove the yoke of King George's tyranny. They petitioned King George for a redress of grievances in a number of documents, prior to taking a more direct and forceful approach e.g., see: Journals of the Continental Congress - The Articles of Association; October 20, 1774 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_10-20-74.asp)

Keep in mind we were warned against submitting to tyranny!

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787. H0W TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS (http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=oldg;cc=oldg;rgn=full%20text;idno=oldg0001-5;didno=oldg0001-5;view=image;seq=00127;node=oldg0001-5%3A1)

Is it not time to resist tyranny?

JWK



We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

[ZENemy]

A suggested solution

Step No. 1, Draw up a formal petition of grievances [See the First Amendment] listing our federal government’s intolerable acts such as imposing Obamacare on the people without their consent via a constitutional amendment.

Step No. 2. Organize a multi-million man march on Washington and formally present copies of the petition of grievances to the President, our House and Senate, and our Supreme Court.

Step no. 3. Will depend upon the action or inaction taken by our federal government and if a large enough segment of our population is willing to take back their government from those who now ignore our written Constitution and impose their will upon the people without the people's consent.

Indeed, these are the steps our Founders took to remove the yoke of King George's tyranny. They petitioned King George for a redress of grievances in a number of documents, prior to taking a more direct and forceful approach e.g., see: Journals of the Continental Congress - The Articles of Association; October 20, 1774

Keep in mind we were warned against submitting to tyranny!

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787. H0W TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS

Is it not time to resist tyranny?

JWK]


Fantastic post.

it is absolutely time to resist.

[CPUd]

I stopped reading at the part where it said "critical mass"

[TaftFan]

I actually agree with Mark Levin on this. Here is a good explanation from him: http://therightscoop.com/must-listen-mark-levin-explains-how-we-can-rescue-america-from-tyranny/

Instead of calling a Constitutional Convention, the states would call a convention to propose amendments. The states can set the parameters of the convention before it is even started.

Any amendment proposed would have to be ratified by 38 states.

The idea that there will be a socialist takeover is simply ridiculous. Most states are Republican controlled.

The whole debate is whether you would rather have members of Congress or state legislators propose amendments. I trust the state legislators more.

Remember, these are the people passing all of these nullification bills. They are much better than Congress.

[TaftFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHvVwgwa0aw

[tommyrp12]

.....

[johnwk]

Since it has been established that calling a convention under Article V presents a number of dangers and would place the fate of our nation's future in the hands of the very snakes in our federal and state governments who now cause our sufferings, I think it is appropriate to offer our founder's solution which would place the American People in charge of their own destiny. The only question is, will the American people rise to the occasion and confront those who hold federal and state power who use it to circumvent our written constitutions, federal and state, while plundering the wealth which America’s productive citizens and businesses have created?

A suggested solution

Step No. 1, Draw up a formal petition of grievances [See the First Amendment] listing our federal government’s intolerable acts such as imposing Obamacare on the people without their consent via a constitutional amendment.

Step No. 2. Organize a multi-million man march on Washington and formally present copies of the petition of grievances to the President, our House and Senate, and our Supreme Court.

Step no. 3. Will depend upon the action or inaction taken by our federal government and if a large enough segment of our population is willing to take back their government from those who now ignore our written Constitution and impose their will upon the people without the people's consent.

Indeed, these are the steps our Founders took to remove the yoke of King George's tyranny. They petitioned King George for a redress of grievances in a number of documents, prior to taking a more direct and forceful approach e.g., see: Journals of the Continental Congress - The Articles of Association; October 20, 1774 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_10-20-74.asp)

Keep in mind we were warned against submitting to tyranny!

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787. H0W TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS (http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=oldg;cc=oldg;rgn=full%20text;idno=oldg0001-5;didno=oldg0001-5;view=image;seq=00127;node=oldg0001-5%3A1)

Is it not time to resist tyranny?

JWK



Fantastic post.

it is absolutely time to resist.

What do you think of asking candidates running for office if they will promote the following Resolution which, if adopted by the States would return us to our Constitution's original tax plan?


House/Senate Joint Resolution

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.



JWK




Today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party's leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket.