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

1/23/14 | johnwk

[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?

[JOHN W K]

Convention of States Project, Frequently Asked Questions No. 2

---

.
At the Convention of States Project's website, and under their Frequently Asked Questions the second question presented and then answered is:

What is a Convention of States?

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

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

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

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


JWK


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

[precisionshootist]

Ok, so you don't support an article V convention. What is your solution? Is it the people need to rise up? Rise up and do what?

[John Valentine]

Earlier, he suggested that the Congress propose a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment. A noble and certainly laudable goal, to be sure, but to expect that this could be accomplished in the Congress of the United States is worse than silly, it is a dangerous sidetrack.

In another location he states “..the Convention of States project comes to the people’s rescue and suggests they forgo rising up and demanding an adherence to their written Constitution...”

This is a truly mind boggling distortion of reality, which is that the Convention of States project exists for only one purpose: to assist and facilitate the rising up of the people as an effective force not only to demand, but to ENFORCE an adherence to our written Constitution.

[JOHN W K]

How clever of you to take my words out of their original context and write: In another location he states “..the Convention of States project comes to the people’s rescue and suggests they forgo rising up and demanding an adherence to their written Constitution...”

This is a truly mind boggling distortion of reality, which is that the Convention of States project exists for only one purpose: to assist and facilitate the rising up of the people as an effective force not only to demand, but to ENFORCE an adherence to our written Constitution.

Now, here is what I actually wrote in full context.

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

JWK

They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

[JOHN W K]

What would our founders do?

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

A suggested solution

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

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

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

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

Keep in mind we were warned against submitting to tyranny!

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

Is it not time to resist tyranny?

JWK

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.