After 226 Years, The House Passes Rule To Count Applications For An Article V Convention

[idiom]

You must not have been reading.

The purpose of free speech IS to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish. That purpose has been abidged since about one generation or a little more after the revolutionary war.

The 1st amendment is deficient which left the door open for economic power of the press and partisan politics to slowly divide Americans and then disable them perceptually from understanding the division as well as constitutional intent, such as the purpose of free speech.

Adding to this, history has been strategically misrepresented over and over.

You can prove you are not disabled from working with other Americans to form unity by posting now, your agreement and acceptance of the definition of the ultimate purpose of free speech as being to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights.

Or maybe you think the framers didn't really intend for us to be able to alter or abolish.

Or maybe you can define another feasible way to create the needed unity.

It's up to you. Show your stuff.

The thread is about an article V convention. Such a convention is a tool for the states to use when the federal government is not fulfilling the will of the people and is years away from an election cycle.

At the moment it is very much following the will of the people.

There exists plenty of free speech, it is providing adequate unity to alter the government, but it is doing it in favour of violating rights.

Free Speech is enabling the over-reach without the need of tanks in the streets.

Meanwhile:

If the sheriffs dept. had lawfully appeared with the records, I would be a millionaire today. There would have been at least 2 feature films, a 1/2 dozen books and 2 musical albums. A treatment direct to the unconscious mind would have been developed by 2000, the secret government would not have been able to pull off 9/11, because what is unconscious is better than secret, so it wouldn't have happened.

Needless to say, the purpose of free speech would have been manifested by my economic ability to create unity by sharing its purpose and the nation would be in a completely different, far better place.

Messiah complex, paranoia, delusions of grandeur, persecution complex.



The governments failure to provide one document to you personally changed the course of history, enabling 9/11, Katrina, three wars, the patriot act and the NSA over-reach, the creation of the TSA, the Tarp, the bailouts?


If you are wrong then maybe things to keep under your hat in public.

If you are right then the guilt of millions of innocent lives is on your shoulder for failing to get a better lawyer, or fight harder, or break in and retreive the documents, or outright bribe a deputy. Plenty of people would have funded such an effort, but you failed the entire world.

An article V convention is going to do what? Propose an amendment banning secret governments and mind control?

The free press is working just fine in other countries and governments are getting smaller. Americans want a bigger government. A majority of the population is scamming a minority. Its not even unconscious.

[Christopher A. Brown]

The first thing the thread about is congressional neglect, malfeasance or nonfeasance. Not Article V itself.

You have not been reading or do not read well.

The thread is about an article V convention.

There exists plenty of free speech, it is providing adequate unity to alter the government,

Yea, but the speech cannot have the meaning that it needs to when related to constitutional intent . . . Violated.

If it was true, I would not have to post here in an effort to see the purpose of unity manifest to actually execute the right to alter or abolish.

Your posting reeks of covert manipulation because you have evaded the question regarding purpose.

Try again.

Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

[acptulsa]

He who does not write well does one of three things. He learns to write. He hires a writer. Or he accuses the whole world of not reading well...

[Christopher A. Brown]

He who does not write well does one of three things. He learns to write. He hires a writer. Or he accuses the whole world of not reading well...

Off topic is either a failure to indentify the topic, it an effort to change it.

The topic is the neglect, non feasance or malfeasance of congress which could actually be called treason if one examined all of things states were trying stop the federal government from doing that were unconstitutional.

Hah! Infiltrating ad hominium. Read this and respond like an American that seeks to preserve the constitution, or be one against it.

Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

[Zippyjuan]

Your rejection is well founded, but perhaps not complete in how and who the words changed effect.

The people are the problem. This forum is proving it. Americans have no clue of what constitutional intent is, and seem to be unable to even discuss it.

Therefore the words of the draft revision I have written could easily be used by some people, to influence and change the thinking of others, BECAUSE the words were adopted as an amendment to the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights. Meaning the words are verified by "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts". In this case people that understand and define constitutional intent consistent with natural law.

Draft: REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.

"forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love" are elements that tend to create or make unity possible. That will change a lot.



You have left out the illicit influence of the infiltrated government after 1871. That's leaving out a great deal of corruptive effort upon the peoples thinking and capacity for unity.



I'm not sorry I provided it, because there are Americans that will pay attention and use the words.



That point is valid. However is ALEC ends up hijacking a convention, it could get worse.

So you would like a Constitutional Convention to change it so everybody will have to be nice to each other.

"forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love" are elements that tend to create or make unity possible. That will change a lot.

[Christopher A. Brown]

So you would like a Constitutional Convention to change it so everybody will have to be nice to each other.

Another cognitive distortion, all or nothing thinking, minimization, misrepresenting how an ancient philosophical doctrine can provide guidance in the creation of unity adequate to alter or abolish.

You have no interest in defense of the constitution if you are posting as you are.

[Ender]

Another cognitive distortion, all or nothing thinking, minimization, misrepresenting how an ancient philosophical doctrine can provide guidance in the creation of unity adequate to alter or abolish.

You have no interest in defense of the constitution if you are posting as you are.

Obviously, the Constitution has not worked. The States were afraid of that and demanded the Bill of Rights- but even that did not stop big government.

[Zippyjuan]

Another cognitive distortion, all or nothing thinking, minimization, misrepresenting how an ancient philosophical doctrine can provide guidance in the creation of unity adequate to alter or abolish.

You have no interest in defense of the constitution if you are posting as you are.

If your intent is to defend the Constitution, why call for a convention to change it?

[Christopher A. Brown]

If your intent is to defend the Constitution, why call for a convention to change it?

It has deficiencies that make it and us vulnerable to usurpation. The constitution can defend itself IF we are capable of using its intent to do so.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Obviously, the Constitution has not worked. The States were afraid of that and demanded the Bill of Rights- but even that did not stop big government.

You leave out the infiltration/takeover of the act of 1871 which was the real problem.

Earlier the states realized that loyalists were lurking and working to take over. That was what the original 13th amendment was designed to stop. Which disappeared with the act of 1871.

[GunnyFreedom]

Any Constitutional convention could propose it's own, novel method of ratification. Like it did in 1786. So there is a real danger from subversion of the process to weaken our Constitution. Imagine putting the Constitution up to a popular vote. What terrible powers could politicians put into the Constitution by persuasion of the voters?

The real danger to come from one of these things is if they propose an alternative ratification procedure. This will act to subvert and overthrow our current Constitution, and work to replace it with something altered or new. Whether it has it or not, it is presumed by a great many that an Article 5 convention has the power to propose alternative ratification processes just like the original Constitutional Convention did when we proposed a new Constitution.

There are some very real dangers in this. There is even a plausible nightmare scenario or two, but I still think a lot of the danger is exaggerated. I mean, I guess I'm a little OK with that because I don't want an Article 5 either, and they can be dangerous, and people only seem to move in emotional extremes.

Regardless, the 'thing to look for' which will make an Article 5 convention very very dangerous, are alternative ratification procedures. Any hint of that and you know they are up to no good. A really sharp eye on the proceedings in depth will help to avert any serious crisis. Ron Paul demonstrated there was enough of a liberty network left to raise hell, and this would be right up our bailiwick.

Another problem, is the very people with the mass appeal to move democratic amendments to the Constitution are not the people you want amending it. This is so because every one of leadership is in hock to those who put them there. We live in an age where the most effective legislators are equivalent to the most bought. And sold out. What sort of changes will they support in the COnstitution? WHat sort of delegates will they appoint?

I am not opposed to an Article 5 on principle, there are grounds when I can see it as proper. This is really not it. The governments are all mad. Most of the people are mad. The interest-movers and the money-makers are all mad. We are descending into chaos and almost no part of the society is innocent of contributing to the chaos. The people with the most influence contributing the most. That is just, the wrong environment of a Constitutional Convention altogether. If there is a danger in it, in that environment is is magnified exponentially. It's really asking for trouble. And that trouble if it comes could be really big trouble.

[Zippyjuan]

It has deficiencies that make it and us vulnerable to usurpation. The constitution can defend itself IF we are capable of using its intent to do so.

Part of its strength is its flexibility. It did not outline everything a government could and could not do but set up a framework of how laws should be passed, representatives chosen, and how they should interact. It established the structure- not the content. That was left to the future to decide. The fact that people are not always "unified" (which you have often mentioned as a goal) is a sign of strength too. That people are allowed to have different ideas and opinions and that those ideas can be freely discussed without worrying about upsetting somebody else in the name of "unity".

[heavenlyboy34]

Obviously, the Constitution has not worked. The States were afraid of that and demanded the Bill of Rights- but even that did not stop big government.

+rep

[GunnyFreedom]

Obviously, the Constitution has not worked. The States were afraid of that and demanded the Bill of Rights- but even that did not stop big government.

Amending it is irrelevant while it is held in it's current state of derision.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Obviously, the Constitution has not worked. The States were afraid of that and demanded the Bill of Rights- but even that did not stop big government.

The contract has been under secret attack since before the Declaration of Independence. Loyalist moles have been in every corner compromising the tools of freedom at each juncture. With the civil war "divide and conquer" worked. Then the act of 1871.

Big government got its start there.

Fear begins with the church protecting secrecy created with fear of the potentail abuses of the unconscious mind. The stuff missing from the picture changes the picture a lot after it returns. All Americans need is to want it to return.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Amending it is irrelevant while it is held in it's current state of derision.

Thats all in YOUR head Gunny, and the loyalists love you for sharing it.

In case you haven't figured it out "it" doesn't matter, we matter. All we need to do is know what is right and start doing it.

Unity WILL alter and abolish. The ultimate purpose of free speech is obviously our tool because it can cross most divisions.

Willful ignorance and unreasonable fears are the only real barriers.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Any Constitutional convention could propose it's own, novel method of ratification. Like it did in 1786. So there is a real danger from subversion of the process to weaken our Constitution. Imagine putting the Constitution up to a popular vote. What terrible powers could politicians put into the Constitution by persuasion of the voters?

I've not seen one proposal to change ratification procedures. My take on that is that it is too obviously unconstitutional. It lacks authority. No state or entity wants the blame of proposing or allowing that.

The real danger to come from one of these things is if they propose an alternative ratification procedure. This will act to subvert and overthrow our current Constitution, and work to replace it with something altered or new. Whether it has it or not, it is presumed by a great many that an Article 5 convention has the power to propose alternative ratification processes just like the original Constitutional Convention did when we proposed a new Constitution.

The safest thing is perfecting the constitution we have by revision of existing concepts to make them more functional or enforceable.
My proposal is that we let Article V itself guide by first working for an environment where all proposals have constitutional intent.

Hence the concept of "Preparatory Amendment". It makes a great deal of sense for America to prepare for its most important political event ever to assure all amendments have constitutional intent.
This IS the right thing to do. As the rightful masters of the congress and the courts we simply, justifiably start doing it.

First end the abridging of the purpose of free speech by revising the 1st amendment.

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.

Then secure the vote by amending assuring each state has fully accountable electoral systems and the final count tally is well monitored.

Then campaign finance reform.

After a period and the public testing itself or its ability to agree upon constitutional intent. States proposals are examined by delegates elected by the people of the states.

Congressional non feasance for 226 years justifies this.

There are some very real dangers in this. There is even a plausible nightmare scenario or two, but I still think a lot of the danger is exaggerated. I mean, I guess I'm a little OK with that because I don't want an Article 5 either, and they can be dangerous, and people only seem to move in emotional extremes.

I see our neglect to assuring constitutional intent with what ALEC and COS are going after 20 years (ALEC) lobbying states as a much more real threat and I can produce Mark Levins 34 minute speech of December 4, 2014, (video) at an ALEC sponsored event to give that fear substance. He's says two different things relating to the security of ratification to state legislators in the beginning, then those fearful of a runaway at the end.

Regardless, the 'thing to look for' which will make an Article 5 convention very very dangerous, are alternative ratification procedures. Any hint of that and you know they are up to no good. A really sharp eye on the proceedings in depth will help to avert any serious crisis. Ron Paul demonstrated there was enough of a liberty network left to raise hell, and this would be right up our bailiwick.

Good reason to unabridge the purpose of free speech which also corrects media to a substantial degree.

Another problem, is the very people with the mass appeal to move democratic amendments to the Constitution are not the people you want amending it. This is so because every one of leadership is in hock to those who put them there. We live in an age where the most effective legislators are equivalent to the most bought. And sold out. What sort of changes will they support in the Constitution? What sort of delegates will they appoint?

Which is why preparatory amendment must be forced by a population unified demanding preparation assuring constitutional intent.

I am not opposed to an Article 5 on principle, there are grounds when I can see it as proper. This is really not it. The governments are all mad. Most of the people are mad. The interest-movers and the money-makers are all mad. We are descending into chaos and almost no part of the society is innocent of contributing to the chaos. The people with the most influence contributing the most. That is just, the wrong environment of a Constitutional Convention altogether. If there is a danger in it, in that environment is is magnified exponentially. It's really asking for trouble. And that trouble if it comes could be really big trouble.

The peoples control over that environment is exactly what I would hope to see. If the people do not work to develop what it takes to control it, then the entire process could be easily hijacked. That is what I'm trying to do, prepare us to intervene and assure constitutional intent.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Oh yea, Americans are seriously distracted by massive cognitive infiltration crying, "problem, problem, problem".

And the fact that congress has basically admitted that it has been in violation of Americans first constitutional right the people can involve themselves with, goes un noticed. Lost in the chafe of endless sensation of the many problems created by the infiltrated government.

Of course the covert infiltrators of the forum will accelerate their subterfuge and posting in subjects NOT RELEVANT to solution, potent opposition to the governmental infiltration, when a thread like this one comes along.

Wake up people, you are getting scammed on every page of the forum.

[mosquitobite]

Anyone who wants an Article V convention is a dupe. Plain and simple.

Amen. Amen. Amen.

They were probably the same people fooled by all the supposed "non-establishment" candidates in 2012. Lol!

[idiom]

This forum is over run by loyalist moles? Not Jews? Not Neo-Nazis? Not Alien Overlords?

Loyalists?

Wow.

Also my last post directly addressed your posts, your reply completely ignored mine.


The population is not distracted, or misinformed. The population likes the status quo. The majority is looting the minority. Until the minority goes bankrupt and the theft collapses, that isn't going to change.

[GunnyFreedom]

I do not oppose an Article V on general principle. There are amendments I would love to see that could only come from an Article V. My primary point is that at this time it would be exceedingly dangerous, because the political will is largely towards 'moar biger nanny goobermint' and amending the Constitution via Article V in that environment will necessarily lead to more, bigger, nanny government. For an Article V convention to be ultimately successful, you need a population and a set of convention delegates who actually respect the Constitution in the first place. Assuming for the sake of argument that we do manage to successfully flip a little over 100 million Americans into a Constitutionalist position in the next 24 to 48 months, what about the delegates? What are their philosophies and who gets to pick to send them?

Will it not in most cases be their seated General Assemblies?

Have you seen some of the bizarre Article V calls coming out of Hawaii?

Upon what sort of principles will people hand chosen by these bodies operate?

There is a real and valid use and purpose for an Article V, but you need a political will towards Constitutionalism, and local legislators willing to cooperate with that political will. Then, measures can be proposed which Congress would never dare to propose. Such as making the violation of one's Oath of Office a federal felony.

This is the kind of thing I would love to see:

"All persons in any political jurisdiction within the United States and her outlying territories, who shall swear or affirm the Constitutional Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, shall if found in violation of that oath be guilty of a federal felony against the United States of America. The degree of the felony shall be concordant with the degree of violation, from minor up to a capital offense. Charges for elected officials may only be brought by a petition of 1/8 of the citizens residing in that individual's district, and a Grand Jury to adjudicate the offense will be composed of 144 persons from within the district and a threshold for a guilty verdict being 3/4 of the members voting guilty. Charges for non-elected officials who have sworn or affirmed the oath, shall be brought by petition of 1/6 of the municipality or county, or 1/8 of the State that represents the area in which the person's chain of command operates, and a Grand Jury to adjudicate the offense will be composed of 144 persons from within that same area and a threshold for a guilty verdict being 3/4 of the members voting guilty."

I know better than to imagine such an Amendment would come from Congress, if it will ever exist, it could only come from an Article V Convention. I also know better than to imagine that such an Amendment could ever come from an Article V convention held today. Like it or not, the current general electoral environment is toxic towards any kind of beneficial reforms whatever, and the set of "whomever the Legislators will pick" to represent our States in an Article V convention will be even worse.

I do not oppose an Article V on principle. I have an Amendment myself which I would like to see and can only be proposed by an Article V. However, I also know that in this current environment, an Article V Convention can only possibly do harm. Therefore do not do it. Thus I oppose all efforts to hold an Article V Convention until the environment changes in a way that will be conducive to promoting beneficial reforms.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Amen. Amen. Amen.

They were probably the same people fooled by all the supposed "non-establishment" candidates in 2012. Lol!

You missed the most important part preventing any "duping" and assuring the people are in control.

By doing that you play into the potential mass corporate scheme of using state legislators who are bought and paid for to ram a convention through without the people having any say whatsoever.

Preparatory amendment ASSURES all amendments have constitutional intent, just like I posted.

My proposal is that we let Article V itself guide by first working for an environment where all proposals have constitutional intent.

WTF, why don't you like constitutional intent. Explain yourself.

[GunnyFreedom]

You missed the most important part preventing any "duping" and assuring the people are in control.

By doing that you play into the potential mass corporate scheme of using state legislators who are bought and paid for to ram a convention through without the people having any say whatsoever.

Preparatory amend ASSURES all amendments have constitutional intent, just like I posted.

WTF, why don't you like constitutional intent. Explain yourself.

And some stool-pigeon appointed by Boehner's right-hand man in Ohio is going to know what about Constitutional intent?

[Christopher A. Brown]

I do not oppose an Article V on general principle. There are amendments I would love to see that could only come from an Article V. My primary point is that at this time it would be exceedingly dangerous,

No, not with preparatory amendment assuring all amendments have constitutional intent.

No amendments are made until the nation of people can agree, and show they DO know and can define constitutional intent BECAUSE that most important action only occurs after proper preparation, which is VERY reasonable.

Address this aspect of preparation before any amendment except preparation has been allowed time to have effect.

[Christopher A. Brown]

And some stool-pigeon appointed by Boehner's right-hand man in Ohio is going to know what about Constitutional intent?

This about the people being prepared to define constitutional
Intent, not about the pimps currently in office.

Get back on topic.

Cease evading.

[GunnyFreedom]

No, not with preparatory amendment assuring all amendments have constitutional intent.

No amendments are made until the nation of people can agree, and show they DO know and can define constitutional intent BECAUSE that most important action only occurs after proper preparation, which is VERY reasonable.

Address this aspect of preparation before any amendment except preparation has had time to have effect.

And the Convention will appoint Christopher A. Brown to enforce the intent of this Amendment?

[Christopher A. Brown]

And the Convention will appoint Christopher A. Brown to enforce the intent of this Amendment?

Manipulative misrepresentation in effort to evade.

Does the notion that free speech have the purpose of enabling unity sound like constitutional Intent?

[GunnyFreedom]

Manipulative misrepresentation in effort to evade.

Does the notion that free speech have the purpose of enabling unity sound like constitutional Intent?

I'm not the one trying to evade. My inquiry from the start has been direct. My position is clear. You cannot put enough people into an Article V convention today who already respect Constitutional intent, for such an amendment to have any meaning at all.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Gunny, if not a covert agent attempting to manipulate perceptions of the fundamentally lawful approach to constitutional enforcement put forth here, is exactly the ignorant product the infiltrating elite of the government hoped would develop while waiting 226 years to start counting applications.

Hard to believe anyone that ignorant wouldn't figure it out and stfu rather than looking like someone that does not like the constitution.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, if not a covert agent attempting to manipulate perceptions of the fundamentally lawful approach to constitutional enforcement put forth here, is exactly the ignorant product the infiltrating elite of the government hoped would develop while waiting 226 years to start counting applications.

Hard to believe anyone that ignorant wouldn't figure it out and stfu rather than looking like someone that does not like the constitution.

How are you going to guarantee that only those who do like the Constitution attend this convention?