Georgia House approves Article V convention

[johnwk]

See: Georgia House approves Article V convention (http://zpolitics.com/georgia-house-approves-article-v-convention/)

” Today the Georgia House of Representatives passed Senate Resolution 371, calling for a constitutional convention to discuss a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment. The resolution passed by a vote of 108 to 63. Many of the state representatives who spoke from the chamber’s well held to the same theme: “now is the time to act.” A few rose against it because of the fear of a “run-away convention”, which has haunted the constitutional process for years’


Keep in mind an Article V Convention would be totally controlled by our federal government and our various corrupted state governments --- the very institutions which have acted in concert to spit upon our constitution's, federal and state!

And why on earth would Mark Levin want to open the door to a convention which would allow folks in government, who would be in total charge of the Convention, an opportunity to make constitutional, that which is now unconstitutional?

JWK


Is America on the verge of submitting to communism without a shot being fired?

[TaftFan]

The fact of the matter is that Georgia's legislature as well as the majority of the country's are conservative and would never propose or ratify any scary amendments you are warning about.

[Pericles]

The fact of the matter is that Georgia's legislature as well as the majority of the country's are conservative and would never propose or ratify any scary amendments you are warning about.

The result of the convention would still have to be ratified by 75% of the states.

[johnwk]

The fact of the matter is that Georgia's legislature as well as the majority of the country's are conservative and would never propose or ratify any scary amendments you are warning about.

Really? What is included in your definition of "conservative"? Those states who accept federal revenue for purposes not authorized by our written Constitution? Give it a freaken break. Every state government is addicted and dependent upon federal government cheese. Were we not warned about this in the Federalist Papers?


A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL ____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers


JWK


Is it not time for the America people to rise up and rebel against a federal government which is acting in rebellion to our written Constitution?

[gwax23]

This new constitution couldnt get much worse than what we have now... Its not as if the current one is ignored and trampled on, on a daily basis...Atleast a new one written by conservatives would be more strongly worded and people who try to interpret it wouldnt be able to say "well the writers really meant this...."

[TaftFan]

Really? What is included in your definition of "conservative"? Those states who accept federal revenue for purposes not authorized by our written Constitution? Give it a freaken break. Every state government is addicted and dependent upon federal government cheese. Were we not warned about this in the Federalist Papers?


A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL ____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers


JWK


Is it not time for the America people to rise up and rebel against a federal government which is acting in rebellion to our written Constitution?

I fail to see how that qualifies as evidence that they would pass propose bad amendments. 38 states are simply not going to ratify an amendment that would make the Constitution worse. The only amendments really viable today would be things like a balanced budget amendment, a term limits amendment, etc.

The Founders warned about passing amendments this way. But they put it in there for a reason.

[TheTyke]

The states ratified the 16th and 17th amendments AND prohibition. You really think our legislators are MORE liberty minded now? Seriously?? KY has sent some good people to Washington (Rand & Thomas,) but we don't have a single state legislator who's truly liberty minded and understands our founding principles. They'd ratify all kinds of garbage. Do we really trust them to have greater wisdom than our Founders?

Not too long again, before "conservative talk radio" took up the torch to disarm conservatives, it was the big-government liberals pushing this agenda, and the conservatives were against it. Heck, back then it wasn't just the JBS and New American sounding the alarm, but even groups like the NRA passed resolutions against it. http://www.scribd.com/doc/207462526/NRA-Against-an-Article-V-Convention

We need to ENFORCE the Constitution. Not let today's politicians rewrite it.

[TaftFan]

The states ratified the 16th and 17th amendments AND prohibition. You really think our legislators are MORE liberty minded now? Seriously?? KY has sent some good people to Washington (Rand & Thomas,) but we don't have a single state legislator who's truly liberty minded and understands our founding principles. They'd ratify all kinds of garbage. Do we really trust them to have greater wisdom than our Founders?

Not too long again, before "conservative talk radio" took up the torch to disarm conservatives, it was the big-government liberals pushing this agenda, and the conservatives were against it. Heck, back then it wasn't just the JBS and New American sounding the alarm, but even groups like the NRA passed resolutions against it. http://www.scribd.com/doc/207462526/NRA-Against-an-Article-V-Convention

We need to ENFORCE the Constitution. Not let today's politicians rewrite it.

The states ratified every amendment. We were discussing the idea that the states propose them instead of Congress.

Look, I know some of you will talk about Republicans and how bad they have always been. The simple truth is they are not going to ratify some bad amendment like the income tax. If anything, it would be to repeal it. That is just today's political atmosphere. We are seeing legislatures nullifying things left and right.

27 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, 17 by Democrats, and 6 are split. That is why I am not worried the Constitution will not be re-written into some sort of socialist manifesto.

[hated]

I understand these amendments have to be ratified by 3/4 of the legislature, but under the first Constitution -the Articles of Confederation- it required ALL states to ratify the changes (Article XIII). That didn't happen. Rhode Island protested the convention thinking they were safe but instead the delegates just lowered the bar to 3/4 of the states. We're to believe this won't happen again?

How much do you trust your state legislators? At once, they would be inundated with demands by the worst of the worst statists and they will assuredly have significant financial backing. There are a boat load of liberals that support article v as well and it ain't for a balanced budget. Meanwhile, Greg Brannon hasn't met a single money bomb goal since his first.

In my state, a delegate to such a convention acting outside of the purview of his directive is supposed to be frightened with a measly $6k fine and/or 1 year in prison and the legislature is absolutely giddy about conforming to de facto national id guidelines among other horrifying legislation. Not to mention they are just going to nominate their delegates. So don't hold your breath about getting anyone that cares about liberty from my state.

Who will wield the power? It appears as if "we" are severely out-numbered and out-gunned. So why go into this fight?

People seem to be forgetting, they don't have to pass tyrannical amendments in order for it to do massive damage. All they have to do is get one poorly worded amendment that can be construed any way they wish. Demands will be made. Compromises and concessions will be on the table.

But this is a result of a clearly concerted effort. Levin's book came out and it was pumped all over the place. Then over 100 legislatures went to Virginia for the "Mount Vernon Assembly." Then they all came back home to start working on getting it done. The Koch apparatus (with surprising support from significant liberty figures) has even mobilized for the effort with Robert Natelson from the Tenth Amendment Center stumping and authoring their handbook to counter typical arguments.

I can't imagine those who hate liberty sitting idly by while such a ripe chance to formally destroy their constraints lay at their feet. They not only make up a significant portion of the population, but they make up a significant portion of the legislatures.

A5 does not appear to be a prudent course of action. Esp. when nullification is picking up steam.

[belian78]

I understand these amendments have to be ratified by 3/4 of the legislature, but under the first Constitution -the Articles of Confederation- it required ALL states to ratify the changes (Article XIII). That didn't happen. Rhode Island protested the convention thinking they were safe but instead the delegates just lowered the bar to 3/4 of the states. We're to believe this won't happen again?

How much do you trust your state legislators? At once, they would be inundated with demands by the worst of the worst statists and they will assuredly have significant financial backing. There are a boat load of liberals that support article v as well and it ain't for a balanced budget. Meanwhile, Greg Brannon hasn't met a single money bomb goal since his first.

In my state, a delegate to such a convention acting outside of the purview of his directive is supposed to be frightened with a measly $6k fine and/or 1 year in prison and the legislature is absolutely giddy about conforming to de facto national id guidelines among other horrifying legislation. Not to mention they are just going to nominate their delegates. So don't hold your breath about getting anyone that cares about liberty from my state.

Who will wield the power? It appears as if "we" are severely out-numbered and out-gunned. So why go into this fight?

People seem to be forgetting, they don't have to pass tyrannical amendments in order for it to do massive damage. All they have to do is get one poorly worded amendment that can be construed any way they wish. Demands will be made. Compromises and concessions will be on the table.

But this is a result of a clearly concerted effort. Levin's book came out and it was pumped all over the place. Then over 100 legislatures went to Virginia for the "Mount Vernon Assembly." Then they all came back home to start working on getting it done. The Koch apparatus (with surprising support from significant liberty figures) has even mobilized for the effort with Robert Natelson from the Tenth Amendment Center stumping and authoring their handbook to counter typical arguments.

I can't imagine those who hate liberty sitting idly by while such a ripe chance to formally destroy their constraints lay at their feet. They not only make up a significant portion of the population, but they make up a significant portion of the legislatures.

A5 does not appear to be a prudent course of action. Esp. when nullification is picking up steam.
You have the right of it.

[johnwk]

I fail to see how that qualifies as evidence that they would pass propose bad amendments. 38 states are simply not going to ratify an amendment that would make the Constitution worse. .

Your speculation is noted. Hopefully you know part of the deal when our existing Constitution was ratified was for the federal government to assume the State's Revolutionary War debt. And how many state pension funds are a ticking time bomb ready to explode in the state government's faces?

At present, state pension funds have an unfunded liability of about $3.5 trillion! Would the state delegates chosen to a convention by state legislatures not be tempted to grant extraordinary new powers to our federal government in return for the federal government assuming the various State unfunded pension debt liabilities? Have we not already witnessed bribery in the adoption of Obamacare? Are we not already hearing the clamoring by some of the states for the federal government to bail them out of their financial debts?

And if such a proposal is brought back to the States for our federal government to assume state pension fund liabilities, are we to believe the leadership of states with unfunded debt liabilities would not embrace enlarging the iron fist of the federal government over their people in return for their state debt being wiped clean? SEE: California on the Brink: Pension Crisis About to Get Worse (http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2013/06/11/california-on-brink-pension-crisis/)


The fact is, our present sufferings are not because there are defects in our constitutions, federal or state. Our sufferings almost universally are the direct result of our exiting constitutions, federal and state, being ignored by our federal and state public servants. And you expect them to act in the people's interest at a convention rather than in their own interest of keeping the heel of government on the necks of America's productive citizens and businesses?


JWK

[gwax23]

They should pass my constitution: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444712-Create-a-Constitution!

[69360]

Stupid, stupid, stupid idea. This is not the time in history to open pandora's box. We could easily see most of the bill of right wiped out. Look at who is in power now. Do you really want them making changes to the constitution?

[mosquitobite]

Exactly.

We're not talking about sending Ron Paul or Thomas Massie or Justin Amash to this thing! It will be the regular day to day statists sent. Those who value COMPROMISE over PRINCIPLE!!

The only people who support this are people who believe the government needs to "do something".

My opinion is they.need.to.do.less!

[johnwk]

People seem to be forgetting, they don't have to pass tyrannical amendments in order for it to do massive damage. All they have to do is get one poorly worded amendment that can be construed any way they wish. Demands will be made. Compromises and concessions will be on the table.

But this is a result of a clearly concerted effort. Levin's book came out and it was pumped all over the place. Then over 100 legislatures went to Virginia for the "Mount Vernon Assembly." Then they all came back home to start working on getting it done. The Koch apparatus (with surprising support from significant liberty figures) has even mobilized for the effort with Robert Natelson from the Tenth Amendment Center stumping and authoring their handbook to counter typical arguments.

I can't imagine those who hate liberty sitting idly by while such a ripe chance to formally destroy their constraints lay at their feet. They not only make up a significant portion of the population, but they make up a significant portion of the legislatures.

A5 does not appear to be a prudent course of action. Esp. when nullification is picking up steam.

Hated,

I noticed you have brought up Mark Levin and his book. I assume you are referring to “The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic”, which seems to have been the launching point to inspire the calling of a convention under Article V. But if such a convention were called it is startling to realize it would put the miracle created by our founding fathers on the chopping block to be tinkered with and dissected by those who now hold political power in our federal and state governments. Are these not the very actors who are responsible for the countless miseries and sufferings we now experience?

And it is most amazing how Mark Levin has painstakingly unearthed every imaginable historical citation to advance the notion our Founders put the calling of a second convention in our Constitution to deal with today’s circumstances. But that thinking and solution is wrapped up in a false belief that the tyrants who now cause our miseries, and in almost every instance have done so by violating our existing constitutions, will not seize the opportunity to sap the very foundations of good government written into our constitutions by our founding fathers, and make constitutional the tyranny they now rain down upon the people. And how could this be done? We do not have to look very far because the answer is spelled out in the various “liberty amendments” offered by Mr. Levin. For example, one amendment he offers, instead of proposing to withdraw Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from “incomes” without apportionment, which is a primary vehicle used today to enslave America’s hard working productive citizens and keep them under the iron fist of government, Mr. Levin proposes to keep this despotic tax alive with a “flat tax” calculated from incomes and without apportioning it among the States, even though our Founder’s wisely demanded that any general tax laid among the States, especially if it were to be assessed directly upon the people and their property, would be tied proportionately equal to each State’s allotted number of Representatives.

The brilliance of this rule of apportioning both representatives and direct taxes is summarized in Federalist No. 54 and reminds us that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” And what does the rule of apportionment boil down to? Representation with a proportional financial obligation! Now, let is apply the principle to today’s circumstances.

In 2012 Mark Levin took the time to explain the Electoral College to his audience. But in doing so, he omitted a vital piece of information that ties the size of each State’s number of Electoral College votes to taxation, which is no longer enforced and actually encouraged California to elect a socialist/progressive president!

CLICK HERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaoJBboEGPY) to listen to Mark explain the Electoral College, omitting how taxation is tied to the size of each State’s Electoral College vote, which in turn omits the importance of why our founders tied taxation and representation by the rule of apportionment.

Just for the record and regarding the importance of the rule of apportionment, let’s look at some recent facts regarding California‘s 55 electoral college votes. According to recent numbers, the total share of federal taxes paid by the people of 18 states [New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Wyoming] works out to be a higher per capita amount then paid by the people of California. And yet, the State of California has an overwhelming 55 Electoral College votes compared to any of these states!


For example, and according to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be a $9,036.74 tax per capita. And Wyoming, under the rule of apportionment is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 tax per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 17 other States? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:



State`s Pop.
___________ X House (435) = State`s number of Representatives
Pop. of U.S.



State`s pop.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF ANY DIRECT TAX
U.S. Pop


In regard to the first formula, both California and Wyoming are getting their full representation which is 55 and 3 Electoral College votes respectively. But, with regard to taxes paid, the people of Wyoming in 2007 contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California in spite of the fair share formula for direct taxation mandated by our Constitution which requires an equal per capita tax.

In 2007, if the rule of apportionment were applied to taxation and representation as intended by our Founders, and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Wyoming would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Wyoming. Although California’s total share of the tax under the rule of apportionment would be far greater than that of Wyoming because of California’s larger population, California was compensated by its larger Electoral College vote in the last election which is also part of the rule of apportionment and gives them a greater say when spending federal revenue!

But, as things are, California got to exercise 55 Electoral College votes in our last presidential election, but did not contributed a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive Electoral College vote as our Constitution requires. This is a direct assault upon the very purposes for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.

Now, picture for a moment if California had to pay an apportioned share of Obama’s 2013 federal deficit based upon its 55 Electoral College votes. Do you really think California would remain a blue State and vote to elect another socialist/progressive like Obama? It seems only too obvious that the people of California would not be too happy to have to deplete their own pockets to fund Washington’s profligate spending and borrowing, and would quickly realize there is no such thing as a free cheese wagon which Obama and his socialist thugs would have us all believe there is.


But the tragedy is, that part of our Constitution’s rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned, which has never been repealed, is totally ignored! And it is suspiciously ignored not only by our Republican Party Leadership, but also by Mark Levin along with every other “conservative” radio talk show host I know and includes Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Herman Cain, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley … etc. But they will discuss every form of tax reform [a national sales tax, value added tax, the “fairtax”, a flat tax, etc.,] all of which keep the iron fist of government around the necks of the American people, but never our founder’s original tax plan which was based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time, especially the brilliance of its rule of apportionment.

JWK


“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)

___ PENDLETON during the state ratification debates

[hated]

johnwk (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?20724-johnwk) I just read your post. Very interesting and well laid out. I may just be really tired (I am) and misread it, but it sounds like you thought I was arguing for and A5. If that it the case, I wasn't and agree entirely with everything you said (if I understand it correctly).

[Philhelm]

Stupid, stupid, stupid idea. This is not the time in history to open pandora's box. We could easily see most of the bill of right wiped out. Look at who is in power now. Do you really want them making changes to the constitution?

Yes, I do. I would love for the mask to finally come off.

[Origanalist]

Yes, I do. I would love for the mask to finally come off.

This slow boil shit is really getting on my nerves.

[Philhelm]

This slow boil shit is really getting on my nerves.

Agreed.

[johnwk]

johnwk (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?20724-johnwk) I just read your post. Very interesting and well laid out. I may just be really tired (I am) and misread it, but it sounds like you thought I was arguing for and A5. If that it the case, I wasn't and agree entirely with everything you said (if I understand it correctly).

When you brought up Mark Levin, my comments were actually directed at him. And, to this date, he seems to avoid a productive discussion concerning the rule of apportionment as it applies to both representation and taxation! Why? And why has he painstakingly unearthed every imaginable historical citation to advance the notion our Founders put the calling of a second convention in our Constitution to deal with today’s circumstances, especially when Madison warned against calling a convention under Article V?

“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

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]

Stupid, stupid, stupid idea. This is not the time in history to open pandora's box. We could easily see most of the bill of right wiped out. Look at who is in power now. Do you really want them making changes to the 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 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.”


Madison was absolutely correct when he warned us that an election into a second convention “…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 foundations of the fabric”


JWK


"There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention would make its own rules and set its own agenda." - Chief Justice Warren Berger

[Zippyjuan]

The result of the convention would still have to be ratified by 75% of the states.

With the wide divide between Red State and Blue State, getting three fourths of all states to agree on ANYTHING would be incredibly difficult.

[Miss Annie]

With the wide divide between Red State and Blue State, getting three fourths of all states to agree on ANYTHING would be incredibly difficult.

That was exactly what I was thinking too!

[MyTwoSenseWorth]

Sadly, there are people on this board who traffic in fear... for whatever reason, they want to scare us away from using a tool, the ONLY tool, given to the people in the several states to propose amendments to the constitution independent of Congress. Note the words "propose" and "independent."

Some would have us believe that a Convention of States (CoS) is the same as a Constitutional Convention. That's not true. In fact, a Constitutional Convention today would actually be extra-judicial - outside the law - since we already HAVE a Constitution, and the only reason one would call for such an event would be, as they did in 1878, to create a new one, and no one in any competent Article V movement that I'm aware of is even contemplating such a thing. That’s not to say that there aren’t wackos on both ends of the political spectrum and hope-to-die anarchists out there who knowingly and falsely claim that Article V allows for a complete re-write, but that’s not who we’re talking about here. A Convention of States called under the strict letter of Article V would be ONLY to propose amendments to the existing document, not scrap it, and any proposed amendments issued could easily be rejected by the legislatures of just 13 states. No ratification, no amendment, just a proposal, no fear.

These same people would also have us believe that our current crop of corrupt congress-critters would scuttle the entire convention, despite the safety measures of simple arithmetic mentioned above. What they don't tell you is that the delegates to a CoS will be selected, appointed, commissioned or elected by the various states, and the Constitution prevents sitting members of Congress from holding a second elected office. That's before even taking into account the very accurate partisan breakdown offered by another poster above, that greatly favors delegates of a constitutionally conservative bent, regardless of the political party with which they align themselves.

Neither do they mention that the two largest and most likely to succeed Article V movements both have written into the text of the proposed legislation strict limitations on what subjects can even be proposed at the convention. One is limited to proposing a balanced budget amendment only, and the other is a bit more broad, but is still limited to only proposing amendments to the Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress. That's it. These are not either / or propositions, and in the end, it's one state, one vote. Delegates at these conventions will be sent there by their state legislatures to propose, debate and dispose of the stated issues. Do you really see a bunch of leftists ending up on either of those delegations? If the proposals pass, they'll be referred back to the various state legislatures for further debate and maybe even local conventions. But nothing happens unless 3/4's of the states ratify. No ratification, no amendment, just proposals, no fear.

And lastly, as would any good convention that wants to stay on topic, the text of the legislation authorizing the assembly specifies that any proposal that falls outside of the stated purview is "void ab initio," or lawyer-talk for dead on arrival.

Anyway, that's my TwoSenseWorth...

[erowe1]

The fact of the matter is that Georgia's legislature as well as the majority of the country's are conservative and would never propose or ratify any scary amendments you are warning about.

The fact that they would propose an Article V convention does not engender confidence in what you are saying.

[NewRightLibertarian]

The states ratified every amendment. We were discussing the idea that the states propose them instead of Congress.

Look, I know some of you will talk about Republicans and how bad they have always been. The simple truth is they are not going to ratify some bad amendment like the income tax. If anything, it would be to repeal it. That is just today's political atmosphere. We are seeing legislatures nullifying things left and right.

27 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, 17 by Democrats, and 6 are split. That is why I am not worried the Constitution will not be re-written into some sort of socialist manifesto.

You're crazy for wanting to let a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats get their hands on the Constitution. Your faith in the Republican Party is misplaced, to say the least.

[hated]

Sadly, there are people on this board who traffic in fear... for whatever reason, they want to scare us away from using a tool, the ONLY tool, given to the people in the several states to propose amendments to the constitution independent of Congress. Note the words "propose" and "independent."

I do not traffic in fear. I do not trust my state legislators. Nor do I trust any other states Your tool is putting the Constitution in the hands of these spineless politicians who frequently have about as much knowledge of history as a freshman college student and expecting them to be held in check by a population educated at the hands of the state and informed by the corporate media. So it's fairly safe to say that those who will be wielding the power will be those most financially capable; and they aren't typically friends of Liberty.

If I see reason to believe A5 is prudent, I would happily admit my ignorance and support the effort. But I do not.


Some would have us believe that a Convention of States (CoS) is the same as a Constitutional Convention. That's not true. In fact, a Constitutional Convention today would actually be extra-judicial - outside the law - since we already HAVE a Constitution, and the only reason one would call for such an event would be, as they did in 1878, to create a new one, and no one in any competent Article V movement that I'm aware of is even contemplating such a thing. That’s not to say that there aren’t wackos on both ends of the political spectrum and hope-to-die anarchists out there who knowingly and falsely claim that Article V allows for a complete re-write, but that’s not who we’re talking about here. A Convention of States called under the strict letter of Article V would be ONLY to propose amendments to the existing document, not scrap it, and any proposed amendments issued could easily be rejected by the legislatures of just 13 states. No ratification, no amendment, just a proposal, no fear.

"On January 21, 1786, the Virginia Legislature, following James Madison's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison) recommendation, invited all the states to send delegates to Annapolis, Maryland to discuss ways to reduce interstate conflict. At what came to be known as the Annapolis Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Convention_%281786%29), the few state delegates in attendance endorsed a motion that called for all states to meet in Philadelphia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia) in May 1787 to discuss ways to improve the Articles of Confederation in a "Grand Convention." Although the states' representatives to the Constitutional Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_%28United_States%29) in Philadelphia were only authorized to amend the Articles, the representatives held secret, closed-door sessions and wrote a new constitution. The new Constitution gave much more power to the central government, but characterization of the result is disputed.-Wikipedia


These same people would also have us believe that our current crop of corrupt congress-critters would scuttle the entire convention, despite the safety measures of simple arithmetic mentioned above. What they don't tell you is that the delegates to a CoS will be selected, appointed, commissioned or elected by the various states, and the Constitution prevents sitting members of Congress from holding a second elected office. That's before even taking into account the very accurate partisan breakdown offered by another poster above, that greatly favors delegates of a constitutionally conservative bent, regardless of the political party with which they align themselves.

You're fine with an appointed delegate? The fact that some of these people ran as D's and R's is some kind of safe-guard? We're at a point today where the biggest difference between 99% of congress is what color tie they wear. None of which give a hoot about that piece of parchment paper.. otherwise states would be refusing to comply on a whole host of issues.


Neither do they mention that the two largest and most likely to succeed Article V movements both have written into the text of the proposed legislation strict limitations on what subjects can even be proposed at the convention. One is limited to proposing a balanced budget amendment only, and the other is a bit more broad, but is still limited to only proposing amendments to the Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress. That's it. These are not either / or propositions, and in the end, it's one state, one vote. Delegates at these conventions will be sent there by their state legislatures to propose, debate and dispose of the stated issues. Do you really see a bunch of leftists ending up on either of those delegations? If the proposals pass, they'll be referred back to the various state legislatures for further debate and maybe even local conventions. But nothing happens unless 3/4's of the states ratify. No ratification, no amendment, just proposals, no fear. And lastly, as would any good convention that wants to stay on topic, the text of the legislation authorizing the assembly specifies that any proposal that falls outside of the stated purview is "void ab initio," or lawyer-talk for dead on arrival.

Two former Supreme Court Judges, One Associate Justice, a retired US District Judge and eight nationally reputed professors of law strongly disagree with you.
http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2007/Minutes/Senate/Exhibits/jus71a15.pdf

Let them write whatever they want into the proposals. Once it's held, everything is on the table and subject to the delegates and state legislators. There is nothing in A5 about confining the scope of anything. A state can withdraw it's delegate if it wishes. 3/4 is not a high threshold. You're seriously over-estimating the regard for the Constitution by the public.

[johnwk]

Sadly, there are people on this board who traffic in fear... for whatever reason, they want to scare us away from using a tool, the ONLY tool, given to the people in the several states to propose amendments to the constitution independent of Congress. Note the words "propose" and "independent."
.

Traffic in fear? Perhaps you ought to address the specific concerns thus far raised so we can discuss them in an intelligent manner rather than dismiss them as trafficking in fear.

JWK


"There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention would make its own rules and set its own agenda." - Chief Justice Warren Berger

[johnwk]

Some would have us believe that a Convention of States (CoS) is the same as a Constitutional Convention. that any proposal that falls outside of the stated purview is "void ab initio," or lawyer-talk for dead on arrival.

Anyway, that's my TwoSenseWorth...

There are but two methods to alter our Constitution mentioned in Article V. The second method listed, which is the States calling for a convention has been referred to a constitutional convention for several generations. Why are you dwelling on this? Is it you way to divert attention away from the dangers of calling a convention under Article V?


JWK

[johnwk]

Gee, I thought by now MyTwoSenseWorth would have responded to my post.


JWK

[dingi32]

The simple fact is that Georgia's legislature as well as most of the nation's are traditional and would never recommend or ratify any terrifying changes you are caution about.

marc jacobs shoes (http://www.fsession.com) | splended (http://www.fsession.com)

[erowe1]

The simple fact is that Georgia's legislature as well as most of the nation's are traditional and would never recommend or ratify any terrifying changes you are caution about.


What they recommend is irrelevant. If Congress calls a convention, it will be up to Congress to make the rules of the convention, not state legislatures.

The states would still have to ratify the amendments. But I don't take as much consolation in that as you do. I'm not sure what you mean by "traditional." But if you mean that most state legislatures are not populated by statists who want the state (and themselves) to be more powerful, then they prove you wrong each day with most of the laws they pass.

[Working Poor]

I found this video of JBS weighting in on this

http://youtu.be/W7FkOygqrKk

[johnwk]

The simple fact is that Georgia's legislature as well as most of the nation's are traditional and would never recommend or ratify any terrifying changes you are caution about.



See Article V Group Ignores States' Complicity in Federal Power Grab (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fconnect.freedomworks.org%2Fnews%2 Fview%2F429317%3Fdestination%3Dnews&ei=LZAMU8u8GIXayAGk7oDwCg&usg=AFQjCNGPjgTrPU33rW-YBKXk0iwa8ge0rA)

It is absolute insanity to believe our state governors and legislatures would act in the America Taxpayer’s best interests if a convention were convened to amend our Constitution. Judging from their overwhelming financial dependency upon the federal government, they would act in concert with the federal government to further tighten the iron fist of government around the necks of America’s hard working citizens and business owners, and find new ways to confiscate the wealth they create in order to “redistribute” it a manner which keeps them in power.

JWK


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI8HRGWKCRc), we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Cheese Party, which is designed to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

[William Tell]

Randy Brogdon and some of the other good guys in the Oklahoma legislature are VERY opposed to it.

[fisharmor]

Yes, I do. I would love for the mask to finally come off.

No kidding.

They already do whatever the hell they want, without thought 1 put into what the constitution says.
If there's an A5 the ONLY thing they're going to concentrate on is procedure. The political process slows them down, but it does not in any way, shape, or form actually stop them from getting what they want.

There was an excellent education campaign going on that was picking up new steam every day, which might have brought about change in our lifetimes that could allow the founders' idea to continue.

Most of you willingly abandoned that idea in favor of trying to subvert the actual existing system, the one that wantonly ignores what the constitution actually says, let alone what the original intent was, in order to try to get... well.... something...... nobody has really even spelled that out yet, so as feel-good as electoral victories are, they're identical to GWB standing on that carrier with the "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background. You'll get your elections, but since there is no actual goal, they'll amount to nothing in the end.

This path we're on will only end when the people decide to end it. Not subvert it, not steer it... end it.

Not now, of course: the education ceased, so nobody else is aboard yet. The only educators left are guys like Levin, who manages to mouth a liberty-pandering platitude in between the state's thrusts of its swollen member in and out of his mouth... guys who are clearly preaching the message that so many of us have also fallen for, which is "it'll all be alright if we just get the right people in power".

So yeah, let's break this into pieces already. It's useless and purposeless at this point. Maybe some more people will wake up.

[erowe1]

No kidding.

They already do whatever the hell they want, without thought 1 put into what the constitution says.
If there's an A5 the ONLY thing they're going to concentrate on is procedure. The political process slows them down, but it does not in any way, shape, or form actually stop them from getting what they want.

There was an excellent education campaign going on that was picking up new steam every day, which might have brought about change in our lifetimes that could allow the founders' idea to continue.

Most of you willingly abandoned that idea in favor of trying to subvert the actual existing system, the one that wantonly ignores what the constitution actually says, let alone what the original intent was, in order to try to get... well.... something...... nobody has really even spelled that out yet, so as feel-good as electoral victories are, they're identical to GWB standing on that carrier with the "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background. You'll get your elections, but since there is no actual goal, they'll amount to nothing in the end.

This path we're on will only end when the people decide to end it. Not subvert it, not steer it... end it.

Not now, of course: the education ceased, so nobody else is aboard yet. The only educators left are guys like Levin, who manages to mouth a liberty-pandering platitude in between the state's thrusts of its swollen member in and out of his mouth... guys who are clearly preaching the message that so many of us have also fallen for, which is "it'll all be alright if we just get the right people in power".

So yeah, let's break this into pieces already. It's useless and purposeless at this point. Maybe some more people will wake up.

What education ceased?

[johnwk]

This new constitution couldnt get much worse than what we have now... Its not as if the current one is ignored and trampled on, on a daily basis...Atleast a new one written by conservatives would be more strongly worded and people who try to interpret it wouldnt be able to say "well the writers really meant this...."

There is nothing wrong with our existing Constitution. The problem is its enemies try to interpret it to their liking rather than enforce it's legislative intent.


JWK


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

[erowe1]

There is nothing wrong with our existing Constitution.

You're talking about the one that authorizes a federal post office. Right?

[Occam's Banana]

You're talking about the one that authorizes a federal post office. Right?

Not to mention "other Persons" "held to Service" ...

[fisharmor]

What education ceased?
Well maybe this is just my perception, but I haven't seen anyone stand up on a national platform and preach liberty for years now.
Am I incorrect?

[johnwk]

You're talking about the one that authorizes a federal post office. Right?


Which one would that be?

JWK

[erowe1]

Which one would that be?

JWK

This one.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

[johnwk]

This one.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html


Yup! That's the one I'm talking about. Aside from that, this thread is about calling a convention.


JWK

[johnwk]

I was listening to Mark Levin yesterday and a caller to his show asked him if our Constitution led to America becoming a super power, why should we change it? Mark Levin responded by talking about the Declaration of Independence, the separation of powers, and a few other things but never answered the caller’s question which seemed to be a reasonable one to be answered.


I too would like to hear Mr. Levin explain to us why we should call a convention which would put our Constitution on the chopping block to be tinkered with and dissected by those who now hold political power in our federal and state governments. Does Mark not realize the people who would be in charge of a convention if one were called would be the very same federal and state actors who are responsible for the tyranny and sufferings we now experience? Why on earth would those who suffer under existing federal and state imposed tyranny want to open the door to a convention giving folks in our federal and state governments the opportunity to make constitutional the existing tyranny they now rain down upon the people?


It defies human logic to believe delegates chosen to attend a convention who are appointed by State Legislatures and Governors who engage in the same types of tyranny our federal government engages in would act in the Taxpayer’s best interests if a convention were called to amend our federal Constitution. And judging from the overwhelming financial dependency upon the federal government that every Governor and State Legislature has submitted themselves to, not to mention how almost every State has an enormous deficit and an underfunded state pension fund which is a ticking time bomb, that they would not be motivated to select delegates to a convention who would act in concert with the federal government to further tighten the iron fist of government around the necks of America’s hard working citizens and business owners, and find new ways to legally confiscate the wealth they create in order to “redistribute” it in a manner which keeps these federal and State tyrants in power. See Article V Group Ignores States' Complicity in Federal Power Grab (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fconnect.freedomworks.org%2Fnews%2 Fview%2F429317%3Fdestination%3Dnews&ei=LZAMU8u8GIXayAGk7oDwCg&usg=AFQjCNGPjgTrPU33rW-YBKXk0iwa8ge0rA)

" Of all the misrepresentations often repeated by the pro-Article V constitutional convention proponents, one of the most important is the “states as victims” mantra … the claim that the federal government is “seizing power from the states” cannot be stipulated to without falsely portraying states as victims rather than as accomplices to these crimes against the Constitution."

If a solution to the tyranny which is carried out at both the federal and state level is to be found, it certainly will not come from those who carry out the tyranny. I know of not one tyrannical government which has willingly released its iron fist from the necks of its citizens.

And how did our founding fathers begin the process of rising up and confronting tyranny? It began with a number of formal petitions of grievances placed in the hands of King George e.g., see Journals of the Coninental Congress - The Articles of Association; October 20, 1774 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_10-20-74.asp)

I believe the people’s first step in correcting our problem ought to begin with uniting and agreeing upon an official document stating our grievances and then formally placing the petition in the hands of Congress, our President and in the hands of each member of our Supreme Court which has likewise been a party to the tyranny we suffer. This was one of the first steps taken by our founding fathers. Is the right of the people to petition the Government for a “redress of grievances” not contained in our Constitution and one of the specific tools given to us by our founding fathers to be used under existing circumstances?

The people cannot expect the yoke of oppression to be released from their necks unless they rise to the occasion and forcefully work to remove it. Indeed, the future of America is in the hands of the American People, but they must rise and confront those who now cause their countless miseries and take back the federal and state government!

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.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Addressing the facts and concerns of;

TaftFan #2, Pericles #3,

gwax23 #5, (correct)

TaftFan #6 (Things might be different in states than we think, and the counter to those differences is provided in the idealistic, completly "out-of-box" perspective that unconditionally support the constitution and its principles.)

TheTyke #7 (This assures officials will be "liberty minded")

Philhelm #17 (If there is a mask, will the removal justify a counter action? Please answer with regard to A), B), C), D), E, F) (1,2,3) & G).)

Origanalist #18 (Amen on the slow boil. And, gnarly cat with interesting friends.)

hated #9 (If we cannot trust the legislators, we can test them using the process described in this post. Then replace them.)

Zippyjuan #22 (The peoples of the states can agree. See A).)

Miss Annie #23 (Ditto)

MyTwoSenseWorth #24 (Your post inspired this post because in reading yours, I realized the one I made, linked at the bottom nearly addressed every accurate point of your post. A few small edits brought it into nearly a complete counter to the problems you describe, while ending any fear.)
"Sadly, there are people on this board who traffic in fear... for whatever reason, they want to scare us away from using a tool, the ONLY tool," I reccomend MyTwoSenseWorth #24 post for the basic accurate legal structure of Article V.)

erowe1 #25 (This post will address the confidence issue. See Philhelm #17 and recommendations)

sgt150 #26 (Correct, we get rid of the "orrupt bureaucrats" See this, comment if possible, please. http://algoxy.com/ows/soldiersinquiry.html)

dingi32 #31 (correct and likely)

erowe1 #32 (Not correct. "If Congress calls a convention, it will be up to Congress to make the rules of the convention, not state legislatures" read Article V, consider that if the states created the constitution, they can amend it and simply by conducting conventions in each of 3/4 of the states they can do so. Please answer with regard to A), B), C), D), E, F) (1,2,3) & G).)

Working Poor #33 (JBS has historically evaded all of this and rely on rhetoric)

William Tell #35 (See reccomendations for #33)

fisharmor #36 (Excellent, critical thinmking at work! "Most of you willingly abandoned that idea in favor of trying to subvert the actual existing system, the one that wantonly ignores what the constitution actually says, let alone what the original intent was, in order to try to get... well.... something...... nobody has really even spelled that out yet,")


erowe1 #37 ("What education ceased?" Education with regard to A), B), C), D), E, F) (1,2,3) & G).)


POST:
---------------
I recognize this right and also that exercise of it can be lawfully ignored. Our use of our right invokes no duty on the part officials.

--"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”"--

A) But can you understand and accept that the root purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?

B) Can you accept that purpose of free speech as prime constitutional intent?

C) Can you accept that EVERY American can understand and accept A)?

D) Are you aware that in 1911, 2/3 of the states applied for a convention and congress violated the law, their oath and the constitution by failing to convene delegates?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEg
http://patriotaction.net/forum/topics/our-first-right-violated-for-over-100-years-4-13-letter-to-clerk
Can you accept that such a fact justifies that all delegates are elected in the states by the people of the states?

E) Can you understand that any state legislator that cannot accept A), can be impeached in this constitutional emergency as being unfit for office?

F)Can you understand and accept that A) B) C) D) & E) are legal process and that IF citizens D) for justification, and E) to complete the legal process they WILL be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" BECAUSE their states, as the people, then will agree that proper preparation for Article V consists of;

1) Ending the abridging of free speech

2) Securing the vote

3) Campaign finance reform

G) And such preparation by amendment is completely constitutional and can only enable democratic assertion of the principles of the republic once complete; WHEREUPON all amendment ceases until America can assure it is competent to Article V by testing itself to assure it knows and can define constitutional intent?

Please answer by letter and numbered paragraph so it is very clear.

BTW, johnwk has stated he cannot understand this process and approach at another forum, and has not been accountable by responding to at least A) above, which is not reasonable. Therefor, very likely, cannot be part of a functional discussion upon restoration of constitutional government.

johnwk wrote 2/25/14 - - -http://patriotaction.net/forum/topics/georgia-house-approves-article-v-convention?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A6596237&page=3#comments

johnwk wrote
"Chris,

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or how it relates to the topic of the thread. You are making no sense to me."

I will refer another thread at that forum for documentation of the likely problem.

http://patriotaction.net/forum/topics/if-there-was-a-way-to-detect-and-block-cognitive-infiltration-of

I'm posting in this fashion because I am usually on a phone. Not this time.

[Christopher A. Brown]

An element of functional circularity seems evident on this board. Posting here now with this link,

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444907-Essay-Anatomy-of-the-Deep-State

Completes the circle. The politically incorrect information is not a part of the circularity but does control the "deep state", which can easily have a double meaning within the link, which is the negative side, the positive side is in the agreement Americans can make which will put the states in control of the federal government through amendment. Preparatory amendment, ending the abridging of free speech will make the information which is missing, acceptable to know, therefore share, raising the state of consciousness for all of us from the dysfunctional depths it has attained with secrecy out of control.

[erowe1]

Yup! That's the one I'm talking about. Aside from that, this thread is about calling a convention.


JWK

OK. I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly, that the constitution that you see nothing wrong with is one that authorizes a government post office.

[erowe1]

An element of functional circularity seems evident on this board. Posting here now with this link,

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444907-Essay-Anatomy-of-the-Deep-State

Completes the circle. The politically incorrect information is not a part of the circularity but does control the "deep state", which can easily have a double meaning within the link, which is the negative side, the positive side is in the agreement Americans can make which will put the states in control of the federal government through amendment. Preparatory amendment, ending the abridging of free speech will make the information which is missing, acceptable to know, therefore share, raising the state of consciousness for all of us from the dysfunctional depths it has attained with secrecy out of control.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins?

[Christopher A. Brown]

Uncle Emanuel Watkins?

I have no idea erowe1. Explain please.

[erowe1]

I have no idea erowe1. Explain please.

Never mind. You reminded me of someone.

[Anti Federalist]

Is it not time for the America people to rise up and rebel against a federal government which is acting in rebellion to our written Constitution?

Well past time...if we were 1/10 the people we were 230 odd years ago.

But, we are not.

The vast majority are perfectly happy with the current system of tyranny, cheer it on and demand more.

It's truly bizarre....like a beaten spouse.

The few that do not, don't have the stomach to do what is required, myself included.

So, that said, there will be no revolution, just isolated instances of "terrorists" and "nutjobs" snapping and pushing back after being backed into a corner with no way out.

That's what all the MRAPs and APCs and military equipment for the cops is for.

To exterminate those few "lone nuts" as they pop up.

Freedom...

[Christopher A. Brown]

Never mind. You reminded me of someone.

I took the hint, did a search, found a thread back here.

Yea, Uncles theory is what I'm doing. I believe I've proven it as real and functional to a significant degree.

Also, recall the "Return of the Sith" and the discussion between the empire and the Sith in the scene with a bunch of flames, about "absolutes", same thing.

Absolutes disgust the empire. They are what people unify around to resist them.

[johnwk]

Addressing the facts and concerns of;

TaftFan #2, Pericles #3, gwax23 #5,


aftFan #6 (Things might be different in states than we think, and the counter to those differences......


You would do well to quote what a person has written and then comment on what they have written especially if you object to what they have written.


JWK

[johnwk]

OK. I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly, the the constitution that you see nothing wrong with is one that authorizes a government post office.



I have no problem with that specific power being granted which is applicable to regulating commerce among the states and allowing the federal government jurisdiction to capture and punish those who would mess with the mail as it passes from one state to another.


JWK

[erowe1]

I have no problem with that specific power being granted which is applicable to regulating commerce among the states and allowing the federal government jurisdiction to capture and punish those who would mess with the mail as it passes from one state to another.


JWK

Good point. Federal regulating of interstate commerce is another thing authorized by that constitution that you say has nothing wrong with it.

[Christopher A. Brown]

OK. I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly, that the constitution that you see nothing wrong with is one that authorizes a government post office.

It does authorize the post office, but the postal system existed before the constitution and very much enabled its creation.

Such is why it is under attack economically by elements of government which represent the infiltration.

[johnwk]

I was listening to Mark Levin this evening while he rightfully and forcefully condemned the actions of the IRS and our present administration’s tyranny rained down upon the people under the cloak of laying and collecting taxes calculated from incomes. And what was his solution to this problem? Mark Levin once again promoted adopting the “fairtax” or a flat tax as a remedy. Unfortunately both of his suggestions suspiciously keep alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes which then allows the iron fist of a tyrannical government to wrap itself around every American citizen’s neck, and inflict the countless miseries Mark Levin complains of.


I believe Jefferson was correct when he wrote: "In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” If we are to end the mischief allowed by the progressive’s experiment and flirtation with Congress laying and collecting taxes calculated from “incomes”, should we not work to withdraw the power by promoting the adoption of the following resolution which would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our founders?



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.

Why does Mark Levin propose to keep alive the socialist/progressive’s tax calculated from profits, gains and other incomes?

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.

[johnwk]

I forgot to note that during Mark Levin’s show that I mentioned above, he embraced a caller who attacked Eagle Forum as engaging in fear tactics in expressing their opposition to the calling a convention. Keep in mind this kind of attack ___ when the party being attacked is not present to defend their position___ is one of the Washington Establishment’s oldest weapons used to smear their opponents rather than confront them in a productive discussion regarding the issues at hand.


I never thought Mark Levin would allow his show to be used in this manner, especially to attack Eagle Forum and Phyllis Schlafly who have been respected among almost every conservative group I know of since the 1970s, and have been at the forefront in defending against progressive attacks upon our Constitution including the deceptive equal rights amendment!


Mark Levin would do well to have Phyllis Schlafly on his show for a one hour discussion concerning the calling of a convention to weed out fact from fiction and truth from opinion. To not do so would suggest Mark Levin has gone to the dark side!

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?