Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BEWARE: Mt. Vernon Assembly is working 24/7 to convene a constitutional convention!
1/23/14 | johnwk

Posted on 01/23/2014 4:19:32 PM PST by JOHN W K

SEE: Reflections on the Mt. Vernon Assembly

By Michael Farris

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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



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


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


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

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


“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr”___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville

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

JWK



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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Miscellaneous; Politics
KEYWORDS: articlev; convention; mtvernonassembly
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

1 posted on 01/23/2014 4:19:32 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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

There was going to be a federal convention in Philadelphia regardless of what congress did or did not do. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power over the convention.

Timeline:

1786.
November 23, Virginia authorizes election of delegates.
November 23, New Jersey elects delegates.
December 4, Virginia elects delegates.
December 30, Pennsylvania elects delegates.

1787.
January 6, North Carolina elects delegates.
January 17, New Hampshire elects delegates.
February 3, Delaware elects delegates.
February 10, Georgia elects delegates.
February 21, Congress calls for a federal convention.

There was nothing to prevent congress from proposing amendments, which it did, regarding taxes and trade a couple of times in the early 1780s.

Just as the federal convention of 1787 was extra-congressional, our future amendment convention of the states will also be extra-congressional. Unlike nullification, the state amendment convention will be constitutional.

2 posted on 01/23/2014 4:26:36 PM PST by Jacquerie (Restore federalism and freedom. Repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Do we really want to convene a convention to give those who now hold federal and state power the opportunity to make constitutional, that which is now un-constitutional?

The American police state isn't an abstraction. It is here. We have an Obama/Congress/Scotus approved police state dressed in constitutional drag. What do you intend to do about it?

3 posted on 01/23/2014 4:31:15 PM PST by Jacquerie (Restore federalism and freedom. Repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
How can you possibly criticize Mike and then use a quote from Madison which addresses his sentiments regarding a “General Convention”?

” 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”

Just what agenda are you accusing Mike of proposing.
I know Mike's credentials, what are yours?

4 posted on 01/23/2014 4:32:53 PM PST by G Larry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
The truth is, the convention ignored the agreed upon purpose for which the convention of 1787 was called which was to revise the Article of Confederation to make them adequate to the exigencies of the Union.

The convention debated the means to improve the confederation government. There was no way the states were going to grant adequate power to a single body of men. That was tyranny itself.

5 posted on 01/23/2014 4:34:32 PM PST by Jacquerie (Restore federalism and freedom. Repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
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?

Huh?

6 posted on 01/23/2014 4:36:15 PM PST by Jacquerie (Restore federalism and freedom. Repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Your Madison quote is given without context. Anti-federalists continued to oppose the constitution after ratification, and hoped to remove the taxing and commerce powers. In response, Madison shepherded what became the bill of rights through the House of Reps.
7 posted on 01/23/2014 4:40:20 PM PST by Jacquerie (Restore federalism and freedom. Repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative; VerySadAmerican; Nuc 1.1; MamaTexan; Political Junkie Too; jeffc; 1010RD; ...
With much reluctance, Article V ping.
8 posted on 01/23/2014 4:42:01 PM PST by Jacquerie (Restore federalism and freedom. Repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Who do you think well resolve constitutional questions should a convention be convened? Would it not be our tyrannical Supreme Court?

JWK

9 posted on 01/23/2014 4:42:23 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

The worst, dangerously uninformed, off-target and wrong-headed vanity post I have read on Free Republic in fifteen years. For shame.


10 posted on 01/23/2014 4:44:17 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

“BEWARE: Mt. Vernon Assembly is working 24/7 to convene a constitutional convention!”

A convention for the purpose of proposing constitutional amendments is not a constitutional convention.


11 posted on 01/23/2014 4:44:57 PM PST by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Bump.

/johnny

12 posted on 01/23/2014 4:46:05 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction of the conduct of such a Convention.

The Supremes might well try to weigh in, but the convention is under no obligation to pay them the slightest attention.


13 posted on 01/23/2014 4:46:25 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
What I quoted from Madison was just after our Constitution had been ratified and there was a persistence among a number of states for an Article V convention to adopt a bill of rights which had not yet been added to our Constitution. I believe most people would agree a bill of rights was very necessary! And during this time period George Washington recommended that Congress draw up a bill of rights and send it to the States for ratification to avoid another convention which he too believed was not a good idea. In response, James Madison took up the cause in the House and on March 4th 1789 Madison and Washington’s efforts paid off when 12 amendments were sent to the states for ratification.

JWK

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

14 posted on 01/23/2014 4:49:23 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

You are correct!The courts can go pound sand along with the fed!


15 posted on 01/23/2014 4:49:48 PM PST by plainshame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
As I asked earlier, what is your solution to turn back the police state?
16 posted on 01/23/2014 4:52:17 PM PST by Jacquerie (Restore federalism and freedom. Repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Bttt.

5.56mm

17 posted on 01/23/2014 4:53:00 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
I don't understand what you are attempting to say.

My agenda is to prevent putting our constitution up for grabs, and in the hands of the very people who now cause our sufferings.

JWK

Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.

18 posted on 01/23/2014 4:53:16 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
If the 1787 federal convention violated congressional instructions, if the convention went way beyond what you say it was authorized to do, why did congress pass the engrossed constitution on to the states for their consideration?
19 posted on 01/23/2014 4:56:20 PM PST by Jacquerie (Restore federalism and freedom. Repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
An Article V amendment convention will be, as I said in post #2, an extra-congressional event. In fact, neither congress, nor the executive, nor the judiciary will be present.

It will be a strictly FEDERAL convention.

20 posted on 01/23/2014 4:59:31 PM PST by Jacquerie (Restore federalism and freedom. Repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

An article V convention may sound like the answer but politics being filthy and corrupt, the first thing a Constitutional convention may well do is to eliminate the Second Amendment on the pretense of avoiding Revolutionary war # 2 or what ever other horror they float for that same purpose. That in and of itself may be the impetus that starts the very war it proposes to avoid.


21 posted on 01/23/2014 5:06:39 PM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I question their commitment to limiting the Convention of States to an actual ‘Convention of States’ rather than an actual Constitution convention.

They’re going to get co-opted and the real goal will be deflected.

I was on the V’th ping list. Haven’t gotten a ping in a while. Wonder if I was removed or if it was disbanded.


22 posted on 01/23/2014 5:13:03 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
Removing the 2nd Amendment or any amendment still requires ratification by 3/4 of the states under article 5.

/johnny

23 posted on 01/23/2014 5:14:45 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
... putting our constitution up for grabs...

And who is it exactly, who is proposing such a thing?

It's one thing to be against something in the abstract; I doubt if you would find a single person on this website, certainly not among the Article V proponents on this site or off, propounding the notion of "putting our Constitution up for grabs". In fact it is to PREVENT such depredations and to restore the Constitution to its proper functioning that such a convention is even under discussion.

24 posted on 01/23/2014 5:20:50 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
"My agenda is to prevent putting our constitution up for grabs, and in the hands of the very people who now cause our sufferings."

I am not certain you fully understand what safeguards are being proposed. This is a law passed in IN dealing with control of the delegates and anything coming out of a state convention.

For instance the law

1) provides that the call by the general assembly for an Article V convention is withdrawn if all delegates and alternate delegates vote or attempt to vote outside the scope of the instructions given by the general assembly.

2) Provides that a delegate or alternate delegate who knowingly or intentionally votes or attempts to vote outside the scope of the instructions commits a Class D felony.

3) Establishes an advisory group to evaluate whether a delegate or an alternate delegate has acted outside the scope of instructions."

What more controls do you believe need to be in place for the states to retake control not of a runaway convention but of this runaway union?

25 posted on 01/23/2014 5:22:45 PM PST by vg0va3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

bump


26 posted on 01/23/2014 5:23:54 PM PST by vigilante2 (Re-elect nobody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder

You really believe that states will ratify the elimination of the 2nd amendment?

Please study the issue and see that states control the content of a state convention not the DNC/RNC. Any suggested changes must be ratified in accordance with Article V.

They can’t just meet at Kansas City Marriott to write a new constitution and say live under it now.

That is propaganda put forward by those which prefer to keep their power by scaring the uninformed.


27 posted on 01/23/2014 5:27:44 PM PST by vg0va3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

We have a government that has abandoned the Constitution. The way I look at it, if they totally screwed it up and instituted a tyrannical government, there is always the cartridge box.


28 posted on 01/23/2014 5:29:47 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
My agenda is to prevent putting our constitution up for grabs,

Take a stroll through what used to be our beloved constitution, or even just the first ten amendments. How many are in force? Are any of the remaining not under attack?

Reform cannot emerge from Washington, from those who profit so well from a corrupted system. If restoration of republican freedom can come at all, it will be from the states and nowhere else.

29 posted on 01/23/2014 5:30:09 PM PST by Jacquerie (Restore federalism and freedom. Repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Exactly. We have a lawless tyrannical government now.


30 posted on 01/23/2014 5:32:24 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
I agree with that also, but do you really expect our folks who hold political power in the States and federal government will work to end their tyranny at a convention? I suspect they will work to make their existing tyranny constitutional!

JWK

31 posted on 01/23/2014 5:36:37 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
I suggest those calling for a convention read the following article. It may cause you to think and start asking some very important questions.

.Constitutional Convention Call Redux - Who Is Behind It

JWK

32 posted on 01/23/2014 5:37:47 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

agree, but how does one then explain the government’s enforcement of the 16th amendment since it was never verifiably ratified by enough states but is yet being enforced. This would never play but I would be more apt to trust a convention if there were no lawyers allowed or involved.


33 posted on 01/23/2014 5:44:03 PM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
I scanned a few paragraphs at your link.

At best, they were historically misleading.

34 posted on 01/23/2014 5:44:46 PM PST by Jacquerie (Restore federalism and freedom. Repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

That is what the cartridge box is for.


35 posted on 01/23/2014 5:48:55 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
From your link:

Who is behind the push for a Con-Con call today? What is the Compact for America? Who is ALEC? Who was Henry Hazlitt and Rexford Tugwell? What new Constitution is waiting in the wings, written by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations? We will answer these questions in subsequent articles.

Answers: NO ONE of any consequence is calling for a "Con-Con". You are beating the wrong horse, on the wrong track in the wrong city. You're just wrong on each and every issue of consequence.

What is the "Compact for America"? Who knows and who cares? It has nothing to do with any effort I am aware of to convene an Article V Convention, nor would it ever.

Who is ALEC? Again, who knows and who cares? Waaay off the target.

Who was Henry Hazlitt and Rexford Tugwell? That's who WERE Henry Hazlitt and Rexford Tugwell, and anyway the question is not particularly relevant.

What new Constitution is waiting in the wings, written by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations? Jeez, from what sewer is this stuff dredged up? Utterly lame and ignorant, that what all this is.

36 posted on 01/23/2014 5:50:04 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

An Article V convention is nothing more than the States exercising their powers under the US Constitution to propose amendments to the existing Constitution!

It still takes several States to approve the amendments for submission to the other States for approval.

the federal government has no power or authority over this convention and in the event 2/3 of the States vote to adopt the amendments, nothing the federal government can do about it!

The States can regulate what proposed amendments may be presented by either voting to approve them or not approving them.

This is not a run away convention or a convention to eliminate the existing Constitution, instead, Article V conventions were placed in the Constitution to provide the necessary power to the States whenever the federal government began operating as a dictator and refused to follow the limitations placed on it in the Constitution.

An Article V convention is called for by the individual States to submit proposed amendments to the existing Constitution to strengthen it from abuse by the federal government.

If you are so afraid of State power and the American people to reign in this out of control government by an Article V convention, then you simply do not understand how the process works. Purchase Mark Levin’s new book “The Liberty Amendments” and get educated before you shoot of your mouth on a public forum!


37 posted on 01/23/2014 6:16:57 PM PST by PotatoChop (Respect is earned, not demanded by this out of control socialist government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
"Who is behind the push for a Con-Con call today?"

No one! The Convention of States and Article V Convention is not a "Constitutional Convention".

It is a grass roots effort to use the tools given us by the founders in order that we would preserve the republic and subsequently our own freedom.

I don't think you understand what the Convention of States movement is.

It also appears that the process laid out in Article V of the Constitution has escaped your scrutiny. Those that wish to ignore this firm element of our country's founding are deserving of the tyranny that is surely coming their way.

Because of the strong majority of States needed to ratify an amendment it is possible that liberals could possibly stop a conservative effort to pass an amendment such as term limits.

But for that same reason it is also dead certain that a liberal take over of the convention or subsequent passage of radical amendments is impossible.

The truth is; most amendments that might be put forth from conservative states would be measured and probably get a lot of independent support. One that I've heard being talked about is that any bills proposed in congress include the names of the people who actually wrote the bill. Another {I've heard] would mandate bills to be single issue propositions enumerated in the constitution.

I can imagine why these ideas would offend the beltway establishment and 'K' street money changers.

38 posted on 01/23/2014 6:26:23 PM PST by Baynative (Got bulbs? Check my profile page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
Are you simply that stupid? The only way for the States to eliminate the 2nd amendment is FIRST 2/3 of the States would have to approve a PROPOSED amendment stating it wants to rescind the 2nd amendment, if, and only if 2/3 of the States approved the proposed amendment, then it will still have to be approved by 36 States before the Constitution could be effectively amended!!

Do you even understand the difference between a States convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution and a constitutional convention where a new constitution is written to replace the existing constitution?

For God's sake, no one is proposing a NEW Constitution! Wake up!

39 posted on 01/23/2014 6:27:23 PM PST by PotatoChop (Respect is earned, not demanded by this out of control socialist government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
What new constitution is waiting in the wings?

CLICK HERE

JWK

40 posted on 01/23/2014 6:30:22 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PotatoChop
I apologize “drypowder” that last post was meant for JWK!

Keep you powder dry my fellow American!

41 posted on 01/23/2014 6:30:22 PM PST by PotatoChop (Respect is earned, not demanded by this out of control socialist government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
The Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, they arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

JWK

42 posted on 01/23/2014 6:33:50 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
That's not an Article 5 convention.

You need to do some research somewhere besides the conspiracy theory side of the internet.

/johnny

43 posted on 01/23/2014 6:36:59 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Yeah, that's what I saw, too.

The Constitution was designed to control and regulate the people? It's the other way around. The Constitution was designed to control and regulate the federal government by the several states and the people.

-PJ

44 posted on 01/23/2014 6:37:15 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper; KingOfVagabonds; Berlin_Freeper; UnRuley1; mlizzy; mc5cents; RichInOC; ...

The loons are out tonight!


45 posted on 01/23/2014 6:38:53 PM PST by narses (... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
Bear in mind that Obama couldn't even get gun control regulations passed in the Senate after Sandy Hook. What makes you think that an amendments convention could get one passed, and then 38 states would ratify it?

-PJ

46 posted on 01/23/2014 6:40:55 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PotatoChop

It pleases me to see that you maintain faith that our constitution remains in play. I will agree only to the extent that today it is used primarily to benefit the ruling elite. Apparently there are fools out there who don’t believe that is currently the case and it is those who ought to wake the eff up.


47 posted on 01/23/2014 7:07:08 PM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
There are many questions which need to be answered. For example, we don’t know the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members or some other rule which ignores the current three fourths rule. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation which required a unanimous consent by the States, the Delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

Another important question is, how many delegates does each state get to send to the convention? Will it be by a rule of apportionment in which our “progressive” states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention because of their large population size? And if they do, could they not steamroll their progressive agenda through the convention and force it upon the entire United States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed for ratification?

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

These and other important questions must be answered. But one thing seems certain, a convention cannot be controlled once it is convened! Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote to Phyllis Schlafly in 1988, regarding another convention: “ have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “

Article V is very clear that when a convention is called, it is for the specific purpose of “proposing Amendments” [that’s plural].

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

48 posted on 01/23/2014 8:16:06 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I’m “attempting” to say, I trust the judgement of Mike Farris and Marc Levine, regarding their interpretation of the Constitution and the constraints available via Article V, because I know their credentials and their character.

Your suggestion that Mike is misleading or uninformed, better demonstrates YOUR lack of understanding, not his.


49 posted on 01/23/2014 8:19:02 PM PST by G Larry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: drypowder; JOHN W K; Jacquerie; All
I've researched both sides of this debate and have come down on the side of pushing ahead full bore with the Article V Convention of States.

It's either going to work or it isn't.

If it works and true Liberty Amendments are ratified, then oorah, we might survive.

If it's hijacked in any way then fine; on to plan B as in Boom and light this candle. It will indeed be time:

Either way, let's get on with it! People out here are getting impatient and sometimes feel like this:

So, get on with it states, the natives are restless. .

50 posted on 01/23/2014 8:40:37 PM PST by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only Hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson