Posted on 02/20/2014 10:17:29 AM PST by WXRGina
Q: How are amendments to the federal Constitution made?
A: Article V of our Constitution provides two method of amending the Constitution:
1. Congress proposes amendments and presents them to the States for ratification; or
2. When 2/3 of the States apply for it, Congress calls a convention to propose amendments.
Q: Which method was used for our existing 27 amendments?
A: The first method was used for all 27 amendments including the Bill of Rights which were
introduced into Congress by James Madison. [3]
Q: Is there a difference between a constitutional convention, con con, or Article V
Convention?
A: These names have been used interchangeably during the last 50 years.
Q: What is a "convention of states"?
A: That is what the people pushing for an Article V convention now call it.
Q: Who is behind this push for an Art. V convention?
A: The push to impose a new Constitution by means of an Article V convention (and using a "balanced budget" amendment as justification) started in 1963 with the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. [1] Today, it is pushed by:
-Hundreds of progressive (Marxist) groups listed at https://movetoamend.org/organizations
-Michael Farris, Esq., of "Convention of States" (COS), and author of the "parental rights" amendment which delegates power over children to the federal & state governments.
-Nick Dranias, Esq., of the Compact for America, Inc., whose "balanced budget" amendment imposes a new national sales or VAT tax on the American People.
-Former law professor, Rob Natelson.
-Nullification denier and law professor, Randy Barnett, who proposes an amendment which delegates to Congress the power to regulate "emissions" [EPA now exercises usurped powers].
-Nullification denier and birther denier, Mark Levin, Esq., whose "balanced budget" amendment legalizes Congress' unconstitutional spending and does nothing to control the debt.
Q: Why do they want an Article V Convention?
A: The only way to get rid of our existing Constitution and Bill of Rights is to have an Article V convention where they can re-write our Constitution. Jordan Sillars, Communications Director for Michael Farris' "Convention of States", said:
"... 3. I think the majority of Americans are too lazy to elect honest politicians. But I think some men and women could be found who are morally and intellectually capable of re-writing the Constitution..." [boldface mine].
Q: How can they impose a new constitution if ¾ of the States don't agree to it?
A: Only amendments require ratification by ¾ of the States (see Art. V). But a new constitution would have its own new method of ratification – it can be whatever the drafters want. For example, the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a referendum called by the President.
Q: Can a convention be stopped from proposing a new Constitution?
A: No. Once the delegates are duly appointed & assembled, they are acting under the inherent authority of A People to alter or abolish their form of government [Declaration of Independence, 2nd para]; and have the sovereign power to do whatever they want at the convention.
Q: Is this what happened at the Federal Convention of 1787?
A: Yes. Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74) to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." But the delegates ignored this limitation and wrote a new Constitution. Because of this inherent authority of delegates, it is impossible to stop it from happening at another convention. And George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won't be there to protect you.
Q: Did the delegates at the Convention of 1787 introduce a new mode of ratification for the new Constitution?
A: Yes. The Articles of Confederation required the approval of all 13 States for amendments to the Articles to be ratified. But the new Constitution provided it would become effective if only 9 of the 13 States ratified it (Art. VII, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution).
Q: Who would be delegates at a Convention?
A: Either Congress appoints whomever they want; or State governments appoint whomever they want.
Q: Who would be chairman at a convention?
A: We don't know. But chairmen have lots of power – and George Washington won't be chairman.
Q: But if the States appoint the delegates, won't a convention be safe?
A: Who controls your State? They will be the ones who choose the delegates if Congress permits the States to appoint delegates. Are the people who control your State virtuous, wise, honest, and true? [Tell PH if they are, so she can move there.]
Q: But aren't the States the ones to rein in the federal government?
A: They should have been, but the States have become major consumers of federal funding. Federal funds make up almost 35% of the States' annual budgets. The States don't want to rein in the feds – they don't want to lose their federal funding.
Q: Did Thomas Jefferson say the federal Constitution should be amended every 20 years?
A: No! In his letter to Samuel Kercheval of July 12, 1816, Jefferson wrote about the Constitution for the State of Virginia, which he said needed major revision. And remember James Madison's words in Federalist No. 45 (3rd para from the end):
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which ... concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." [boldface mine]
The powers delegated to the feds are "few and defined" – what's to amend? All else is reserved to the States or the People – so State Constitutions would need more frequent amendments. Do you see?
Q: Did Alexander Hamilton say in Federalist No 85 (next to last para) that a convention is safe?
A: No! He said, respecting the ratification of amendments, that we "may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." But today, our State legislatures don't protect us from federal encroachments because:
-We have been so dumbed down by progressive education that we know nothing & can't think;
-State legislatures have been bought off with federal funds; and
-Our public and personal morality is in the sewer.
Q: Did Our Framers – the ones who signed The Constitution – think conventions a fine idea?
A: No!
-Mr. Pinckney said on September 15, 1787:
"Conventions are serious things, and ought not to be repeated."
Alexander Hamilton wrote of:
"...the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded..." Federalist No. 85 (9th para)
James Madison said in his letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville: [2]
"3... an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it ... 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. ... 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..." [boldface mine]
Q: Do we have "violent partizans" or "individuals of insidious views" who seek a "dangerous opportunity to sap the very foundations of the fabric" of our country?
A: Yes, and they have been pushing for an Article V convention since 1963.
Q: What did our Framers say about the purpose of amendments to the Constitution?
A:
-the novelty and difficulty of what they were doing would require periodic revision (Mr. Gerry on June 5, 1787);
-remedy defects in the Constitution (Hamilton on Sep. 10, 1787);
-useful amendments would address the "organization of the government, not ... the mass of its powers" (Federalist No. 85, 13th para); and
-"amendment of errors" & "useful alterations" suggested by experience (Federalist No. 43 at 8.) [3]
Q: But those pushing for a convention say the remedy for politicians who violate the Constitution is to amend the Constitution.
A: Yes, that is their crazy claim: that even though for over a century, the feds have been usurping hundreds of powers not delegated in the Constitution, all we have to do is amend the Constitution, and everyone will start obeying it. those. [5]
Q: What about their claim that the feds violate the Constitution because they don't understand it?
A: Rubbish! Our Constitution is so simple that Hamilton said The People were "the natural guardians of the Constitution". The Oath of office at Art. VI, clause 3, implicitly requires the feds to learn it. For phrases the feds have perverted – such as the "interstate commerce," "general welfare" & "necessary and proper" clauses, a quick look into The Federalist Papers reveals the original intent. I illustrate that here and elsewhere.
Q: How do we get rid of the bad amendments such as the 16th &17th?
A: Repeal them the same way we repealed the 18th amendment. Instead of sending to Congress people who don't know the Constitution; send people who know the Constitution and commit to repealing the bad amendments. And if they don't act to repeal them, fire them!
Q: Why was the "convention method" put in Article V?
A: This chart compiles the references in Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 to what became Article V.
-Law professor John A. Eidsmoe suggests the convention method of Article V was added rather hastily, at the time when the delegates were closing their deliberations, and this provision did not receive the careful attention given to most other provisions of the Constitution.
-It may also have been a compromise designed to induce Gov. Morris, Gerry, Mason, & Randolph to sign the Constitution.
But if they don't, who is going to enforce these laws you have so much faith in? The feds? Obama would love the constitution for the Newstates of America – it makes him dictator! He won't prosecute delegates who violate the call. Your State government? They sold you out to the feds long ago. Errant delegates will be protected by the feds. It doesn't matter what a law says if it isn't enforced.
Ever since 1963, globalists have intended to use an Article V convention as the means for imposing a new Constitution on us. Today, George Soros – the destroyer of countries – is financing the push for a convention. Don't let him and his minions destroy America.
Conclusion
This little chart illustrates our Constitution & Declaration and the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. For 100 years, we elected politicians who ignore them. We don't understand that the amendments proposed by Michael Farris, Mark Levin, Randy Barnett, & Nick Dranias increase the powers of the federal government because we don't know the list of enumerated powers in the Constitution. You could remedy that: Print out the chart and read the Constitution & Declaration!
As The Blue Tail Gadfly said, even though "the Constitution is not being enforced, it still declares this federal government LAWLESS! The true rule of law is still on our side, but not for much longer if the Constitution is allowed to be foolishly altered."
NOTES:
[1] http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/Ford-Pursuit-of-Globalism.pdf
[2] Those pushing for a convention are not telling the truth about what Madison said in his letter to Turberville. The only way you can know who is telling the truth is to study the letter.
[3] Madison did not endorse the "convention method" of proposing amendments. He always said that when States want amendments, they should instruct their congressional delegation to pursue it:
-Madison's comments & proposals at the Federal Convention of 1787 show this.
-In his letter of 1788 to Turberville, he speaks of the two methods of proposing amendments:
"2. A Convention cannot be called ... without the previous application of ⅔ of the State legislatures...The difficulties ... must ...be much greater than will attend the origination of amendments in Congress, which may be done at the ... [instruction] of a single State Legislature... "
-How was the Bill of Rights handled? On May 5, 1789, Rep. Bland (p. 258-261) introduced into Congress a petition from Virginia for an Art. V Convention to propose amendments. On June 8, 1789, Madison (p. 448-460) circumvented Bland and introduced the amendments for Congress to propose to the States. On September 24, 1789, Congress sent them to the States for ratification.
[4] If your spouse violates the marriage vows, amend the vows and your marriage will be saved!
If motorists violate the speed limit, amend the speed limit and safety will be restored!
When politicians violate the Constitution, amend the Constitution, and all will obey it!
[5] It is important to understand that the proposed amendments drafted by Randy Barnett, Mark Levin, Nick Dranias, and Michael Farris all increase the powers of the federal government by legalizing powers they have already usurped – or they delegate new powers to the federal government.
[6] The Constitution was a product of compromise: Alexander Hamilton was an abolitionist – but the Constitution permitted slavery. James Madison wanted to stop the importation of slaves immediately (Federalist No. 42, 6th para); but Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 permitted it to continue 20 more years. Hamilton said the Constitution wasn't perfect, but "is the best that the present views and circumstances of the country will permit" (Federalist No. 85, 6th – 8th paras). The "convention" provision of Art. V seems to have been added – on the last day of deliberations (Sep. 15, 1787) – to induce Gerry, Mason, & Randolph to sign the Constitution. But they still refused to sign.
” The push to impose a new Constitution by means of an Article V convention”
BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT
New amendments ONLY!!! and 3/4 of the states have to ratify it BEFORE it becomes part of the constiution...
If you think votes are crooked now. Wait till the left gets a hold of a constitutional convention.
A constitutional convention is the biggest mistake we could make at this point in time.
Some heavy-duty propaganda here!
I'll take my legal advice from Mark Levin.Publius Huldah, she is ill prepared to discuss the Law
“
Q: How can they impose a new constitution if ¾ of the States don’t agree to it?
A: Only amendments require ratification by ¾ of the States (see Art. V). But a new constitution would have its own new method of ratification – it can be whatever the drafters want. For example, the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a referendum called by the President.
“
They are agreeing with Mark Levin here, but they are in other parts of this article Grouping Mr. Levin in with the likes of Soros....
Either the author of this article is dumb as a box of rocks or is a Establishment schill who is looking the poison the well of using Article V to BYPASS Washington to PROPOSE amendments that would limit the Establishment power IN WASHINGTON....
Article V does NOT equal throwing out the current constitution and replacing it wholesale, it merely is a MEANS of PROPOSING NEW AMENDMENTS that would have to go through the CURRENT and EXISTING RATIFICATION PROCESS...
Because at this point the state governments are the only recourse to LIMIT the overgrown power that has accumulated itself in Washington...
That means we can Propose NEW AMENDMENTS that would LIMIT Federal Government power that would never ever be proposed by the people who are currently ABUSING the power...
To put it another way, Asking Congress to LIMIT itself right now would be like asking the rampaging Bull in a shopping mall very nicely to go Castrate itself....
IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN...
The shop keepers are going to have to get together and call in the VET, herd the rampaging animal into the chute and take care of the problem so we can take the rampaging bull and turn it into in the steer that pulls the plow instead of plowing us over...
“A constitutional convention is the biggest mistake we could make at this point in time.”
You are the one talking about a constitutional convention.
We are talking about an Article V convention of the states to put teeth in the current Constitution. Please get your facts straight next time before you post.
Some heavy-duty propaganda here!
Comming from BOTH sides of the establishment....
They think by taking George Soros’s Loony UNCONSTITUTIONAL PLAN to replace the Constitution with some Soviet constitution and LINKING it to Mark Levin’s Constitutional Plan which is PART OF THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION which is SPELLED OUT IN ARTICLE V, (READ THE DAMN THING IF YOU DON’T THINK IT IS).
That they can poison the well for the only source of water that has any chance to put the fire out that is BURNING in Neo-ROME ie, WASHINGTON DC....
The Establishment is starting to get petrified of the growing prospects that the states get together and neuter the DC Beltway..... BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT...
America 2014 is a near police state and you are seriously worried about a state convention to propose amendments?
[ A constitutional convention is the biggest mistake we could make at this point in time. ]
Agreed... However Article V is not a process to replace the constitution, it is a process for states to PROPOSE new amendments...
thanks for the important post
among the things to know about a movement for something, one of the most important is who is behind the movement, and that can be just as important or more important than what you think generally of the idea - a con con - that the movement is supporting; from knowing who is behind the idea, though the idea itself be neutral, you learn motive and direction you can expect a movement wants to take the idea
I have often said a con con is like buying a pig in a poke
and in general it is
but, when there is a movement behind getting a con con then you know that movement will also seek to control, maneuver, influence its outcome
again, thanks for the info
Most think our constitution is illegitimate. Do you?
I agree. With all due respect to Publius Huldah, the wires are crossed somewhere.
If we needed to know about the author their description of the great one tells us all we need to know....
Guy who wrote the article is a damned Looney Toon...
Not for the birther thing, but for the "Nullification Denier" thing...
Here is the order of action as I see it...
1. Elect More Republicans - FAILED
2. Article V convention to PROPOSE Amendments - STARTING - In Progress
3. Nullification - ONLY is step 2 fails.
4. Civil War - If step 3 is successful or even if it fails...
There is a "con-con" going on right now. Every day. Every time 0bama uses his magic pen, every time Congress convenes, every time the SCOTUS issues an activist ruling, every time the administrative state produces another regulation. The Constitution is being rewritten before our eyes, and their "solution" is to restore the political situation to 2001-2007, as if that did any good.
She is a retired "slip and fall" lawyer i.e a Democrat
You’re welcome, Wuli.
I've learned some interesting things about the Constitution from Publius Huldah. But her being a Democrat helps to explain a few things about her somewhat subjective interpretations of some clauses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.