Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V
Convention of States ^ | Michael Farris, JD, LLM

Posted on 02/18/2014 1:39:08 PM PST by Jacquerie

The John Birch Society describes itself as a constitutionalist organization, yet it is highly critical of a very important component of the Constitution. The JBS does not like Article V’s provision that allows the States to unilaterally propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution.

George Mason demanded that this provision be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today. He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.

Current conservative solutions to the problems of federal abuse of power fall into one of two general strategies: (1) try to elect more conservatives to federal office; or (2) promote theories like “nullification” that are not grounded in the text of the Constitution and have no realistic chance of success.

Our plan is to use the Constitution’s own formula—a Convention of States under Article V—to give us real solutions that are as big as the problems.

Here are our answers to the sixteen JBS questions:

(Excerpt) Read more at conventionofstates.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 17th; articlev; birch; birchers; constitution; jbs; johnbirchsociety
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last
Michael Farris' paper is an embedded pdf at the source link. On the right hand side you'll find the Citizen's Toolkit. At the bottom is the subject pdf, "Answers to JBS Questions."

It is a very long twenty-three pages, requiring atypical freeper attention to finish. I assure all it is a worthwhile read.

1 posted on 02/18/2014 1:39:08 PM PST by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative; VerySadAmerican; Nuc 1.1; MamaTexan; Political Junkie Too; jeffc; 1010RD; ...
Article V ping!

The subject is a Michael Farris pdf that should be read, understood and promoted by all freepers to their state delegations.

2 posted on 02/18/2014 1:42:22 PM PST by Jacquerie ( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I think the John Birchers are jealous that everyone is not jumping on board their nullification bandwagon.
I think they see the Article V advocates as competition for their ideals.


3 posted on 02/18/2014 1:44:23 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

The link leads to the general site, not to an individual article. Which article should we read?


4 posted on 02/18/2014 1:46:10 PM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Let me put in a plug to the COS effort's web site.

There are COS efforts now in most states, from red to blue. Click on the "volunteer" button on the website . Minimally, scroll down to "Non-Leadership Positions" and get in contact with your state COS folks.

There are state-specific COS websites, and state-specific invite-based facebook pages.

It is important to get this ramping up...

An early action item to get involved with is petitioning - getting signatures of voters in your state in favor of COS. As the COS in your state contacts your state Reps/Senators, they will greatly be aided by having these petitions in their tool-bag, with lots of sigs from their districts.

5 posted on 02/18/2014 1:51:02 PM PST by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I don’t get this at all. We’re going to propose and enact new amendments to the Constitution that the dimmos already ignore, and the repubs are too cowardly to hold them accountable for?

My point is, the Constitution as it’s currently written is fine, if the American people elected decent legislators and presidents. But with a depraved electorate, I just don’t see how this will help.

But it would be great to make the Supremes elected positions, as well as the appellate and district judges, so they’d be subject to the will of the people again. It would also be great to have a balanced budget and term limits for all elective offices. And maybe make all elective offices impeachable via simple majorities in both houses. But I think we’re too far gone for such common sense to happen. “Common sense” has become profoundly uncommon.

What we need is wholesale repentance and turning back to obedience to God. That’s the ONLY cure for our national ills.


6 posted on 02/18/2014 1:57:09 PM PST by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Per Post #1.

Michael Farris' paper is an embedded pdf at the source link. On the right hand side you'll find the Citizen's Toolkit. At the bottom is the subject pdf, "Answers to JBS Questions."

It is a very long twenty-three pages, requiring atypical freeper attention to finish. I assure all it is a worthwhile read.

7 posted on 02/18/2014 2:01:09 PM PST by Jacquerie ( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

(good lord this was a pain to put together, pdf files suck.)

Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V
-
1. What ails America?
Is it our Constitution or our Congressional, Presidential, and bureaucratic non compliance with the Constitution?
-
2. If our Constitution is the problem, what exactly do we need to change in it and why can’t that be done by the method that all 27 amendments have undergone to change the Constitution?
-
3. If the problem isn’t the Constitution, but rather unfaithfulness to the Constitution, how will changing the Constitution remedy the problem?
-
4. Who is in charge of calling the convention according to Article V?
If Congress calls the convention, as Article V says it does, who decides how many delegates each state gets?
Will the number of voting delegates be population based or will each state get one vote or will another method be used?
Are these questions thats tate legislatures are charged with deciding or does Article V say that Congress decides?
-
5. At the convention how many amendments can be proposed?
-
6. Where are the amendments proposed according to Article V?
Are the amendments proposed before the convention of the states or are they drafted and deliberated upon at the convention by the delegates?
Are those who support the convention under the assurance that it won’t be a runaway convention contradicted by their own statements (not to mention Article V) which support the idea that the amendments are proposed, deliberated, and drafted at the convention itself?
-
7. If we aren’t following the Constitution now, would it be logical to assume that once we pass amendments to the Constitution, then the new amendments and the Constitution will be followed?
-
8. Do the proponents of the Article V Convention assume that the progressives, globalists, socialists, and liberal Democrats will sit out this convention?
Or will they vie and struggle for the delegate seats?
What political theories will dominate the Article V Convention?
-
9. Do the proponents of an Article V Convention truly consider the risks associated with the congressional right to decide upon the method of ratification of the proposed amendments?
What if Congress chooses the state ratification conventions as the method of ratification, won’t the legislatures then be cut out of the ratification process altogether?
-
10. If this is just a “convention of states” and not a constitutional convention are you content with the political atmosphere and morality of the current representatives in your state government?
Does it give you comfort to know that those public servants at your state level of government will be able to make changes to the Constitution?
-
11. One proposed “Liberty Amendment” allows 3/5 of the U.S. House and Senate to overturn any Supreme Court ruling.
But Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 grants Congress the power, with only a simple majority of both houses of Congress, to overturn Supreme Court rulings by limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Does the proposed “Liberty Amendment” strengthen or weaken this congressional check on the Supreme Court?
-
12. One proposed “Liberty Amendment” requires 30 states to agree in order for the states to overturn federal law.
As written, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution clearly allows any one state to nullify federal law that exceeds its enumerated powers.
Does this “Liberty Amendment strengthen or weaken the position of the states?
-
13. Proponents of the convention say that one great security against a runaway convention is that only thirteen states have to choose not to ratify, thus guaranteeing that bad amendments won’t be ratified.
Can you name those thirteen states you can count on to oppose such bad amendments?
The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments were passed with similar safeguards in place.
Why didn’t enough states stand up against those amendments to prevent their
ratification?
-
14. Proponents of a convention say that the Constitution can’t be destroyed because Article V only authorizes amendments to “this” constitution.
By definition, amending the Constitution is changing the Constitution, and in Article V there is no limit to the number of amendments.
So is there any assurance that certain amendments will be off the table?
Doesn’t amending the Constitution create a new Constitution?
-
15. Could the method of ratification for these proposed amendments from the convention be changed?
Didn’t the original Constitutional Convention of 1787 create its own rules for ratification in contradiction to the requirements of the Articles of Confederation?
-
16. Is our federal government out of control? That is to ask, has it escaped the boundaries of the Constitution?
Is Congress operating outside of the powers delegated to it under Article I?
Has the concept of federalism been overthrown to a large degree by an oppressive central government?
Of course, but what is the proper remedy?
Do we have a constitutional problem or a problem following the Constitution?
-


8 posted on 02/18/2014 2:06:23 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I read the whole thing; it is indeed worthwhile. This is something that all who care about Liberty should read and share with others.


9 posted on 02/18/2014 2:08:40 PM PST by FYREDEUS (FYREDEUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

Thanks for collating the questions. I would still be fiddling around with html and messing it up.


10 posted on 02/18/2014 2:13:11 PM PST by Jacquerie ( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

bfl8r


11 posted on 02/18/2014 2:15:50 PM PST by VRW Conspirator ( 2+2 = V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

George Mason attended the Constitutional Convention but refused to sign the Constitution. He predicted that the government would end either in monarchy or a tyrannical aristocracy. It would be difficult to say that he was wrong, even if it took longer than he might have thought to materialize.


12 posted on 02/18/2014 2:16:06 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Most of their answers make sense to me, but I am not nearly as certain as they are that the votes at the Convention will be one state-one vote. The ABA study on Article V, which has been linked to on many of these threads, predicted that votes at the Convention would be proportional to state population. And even if Congress votes to call a Convention with a one state-one vote rule, that will be challenged in court before the Convention ever meets.


13 posted on 02/18/2014 2:16:49 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I’ve been soundly convince against an Article V route.

It would be a disaster, and wholly ineffective.


14 posted on 02/18/2014 2:18:23 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: afsnco
If you wish to get it, take some quiet time to read it all:

Michael Farris’ paper is an embedded pdf at the source link. On the right hand side you'll find the Citizen's Toolkit. At the bottom is the subject pdf, “Answers to JBS Questions.”

It is a very long twenty-three pages, requiring atypical freeper attention to finish. I assure all it is a worthwhile read.

15 posted on 02/18/2014 2:19:35 PM PST by Jacquerie ( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: afsnco
But it would be great to make the Supremes elected positions, as well as the appellate and district judges, so they’d be subject to the will of the people again.

SCOTUS is not supposed to be subject to the will of the people. We already made that mistake with the 17th Amendment, which made senators subject to the will of the people in a State, rather than the State itself.

Repealing the 17th would do more to address the imbalance of power than anything else, IMO. It is the one amendment that couldn't be cheated on.

16 posted on 02/18/2014 2:21:35 PM PST by Ken H (What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I’ll have to print it off and add it to my three-ring binder along with the ALEC and ABA documents.


17 posted on 02/18/2014 2:22:46 PM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Well, if a federal court attempted to stomp on the states to the extent that it interfered, delayed or otherwise upset a process in which there is no legitimate judicial precedent whatsoever . . . the states should meet in an amendment convention anyway. IIRC, that was Michael Farris’ recommendation.
18 posted on 02/18/2014 2:25:10 PM PST by Jacquerie ( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Repealing the 17th would do more to address the imbalance of power than anything else, IMO. It is the one amendment that couldn't be cheated on.

Maybe so, but it's the one amendment almost guaranteed not to pass. Can you imagine people anywhere in the U.S. voting to eliminate their right to vote?

19 posted on 02/18/2014 2:26:42 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Maybe so, but it's the one amendment almost guaranteed not to pass. Can you imagine people anywhere in the U.S. voting to eliminate their right to vote?

Ah, but the people don't vote on amending the Constitution.

20 posted on 02/18/2014 2:29:41 PM PST by Ken H (What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
We're not playing tiddlywinks here, folks. This is very serious.


21 posted on 02/18/2014 2:29:55 PM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afsnco

“...it would be great to make the Supremes elected positions...”

I couldn’t disagree more on this point. The last thing we need is judges holding their fingers in the air prior to ruling. Oh...wait...I see what you did there!


22 posted on 02/18/2014 2:30:07 PM PST by Personal Responsibility (I'd use the /S tag but is it really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; All
George Mason demanded that this provision be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today. He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.

May be a minor point, but at the time of the Constitutional Convention at which Mason was active, there was no Washington, D.C. yet, so the author should substitute "federal government" in place of "Washington, D.C."

IIRC, Mason was among the Constitutional Convention participants who left early and did not sign the final document.

23 posted on 02/18/2014 2:30:12 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afsnco
They honor the Constitution, all right, but it's the Living Constitution they honor. This is the Constitution that is "amended" by judges via case law, and not by the amendatory process as outlined in Article V.

The only way to correct the case law under which the Living Constitution is interpreted is to amend the Constitution so as to sharpen the language and reduce the ability to write case law that misinterprets the actual language.

An Amendments Convention is nothing more than a tool, and it's the tool that needs to be used when an entrenched system battens off the case law that gives it more power than the Constitution intended.

24 posted on 02/18/2014 2:30:37 PM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

What are your fears and more important what other options would you propose?

Freepers constantly trumpet the Founders and their wisdom and I agree... Then WHY Article V?

Ponder for a moment the inclusion of Article V and where we are today...


25 posted on 02/18/2014 2:30:44 PM PST by bfh333 ("Hope"... "Change"... You better HOPE you have some CHANGE after the next 4 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Ah, but the people don't vote on amending the Constitution.

Not necessarily. Congress has the job of determining whether an amendment will be ratified by state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions. Should Congress choose state ratifying conventions, the people of a state would elect delegates to that ratifying convention whose job would be to vote up-or-down on the amendment.

Here is my usual boilerplate for these threads.

-- BEGIN --

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

Implicitly forbidden:

I have two reference works for those interested.

The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

26 posted on 02/18/2014 2:34:20 PM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Ah, but the people don't vote on amending the Constitution.

(a) They do, if Congress votes to have the new amendments ratified by Conventions; and (b) they vote for their state legislators. The 17th Amendment was originally ratified only because there was a mass movement to vote out state legislators who refused to ratify it.

27 posted on 02/18/2014 2:35:49 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Here is my question. What Guarantee is there that the federal government will recognize an Article 5 convention at any degree?
Since they are ignoring the “Law” as it was put down by the founders, what prevents them from ignoring any new “law” put down by the states?
The very end of any new amendments put forth by the states it should allow for secession if the federal government does NOT recognize the legitimate rights of those states to amend the constitution and enforce it...or at the very least, put teeth into the thing.
They will ignore it. I would bet on that.
28 posted on 02/18/2014 2:37:11 PM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“(2) promote theories like “nullification” that are not grounded in the text of the Constitution and have no realistic chance of success.”

Yeh just ignore the 10th ammendment which is the only peaceful way the constitutional republic will be restored.

The Constitution does not need to be ammended it just needs to be enforced.


29 posted on 02/18/2014 2:40:36 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
Good historical point, and Michael Farris should not have expressed Mason that way. It was the Ten-Mile-Square and not Washington, DC.

Mason attended to the end of the convention and did not sign. He was blind angry at what he regarded as an aristocratic house of reps and the lack of a bill of rights.

30 posted on 02/18/2014 2:41:35 PM PST by Jacquerie ( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bfh333

The current Constitution is being ignored, violated, openly raped, used as toilet paper.

What makes anyone think that an amended Constitution will be treated any differently by the nihilists in charge?


31 posted on 02/18/2014 2:42:13 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Well, if a federal court attempted to stomp on the states to the extent that it interfered, delayed or otherwise upset a process in which there is no legitimate judicial precedent whatsoever . . . the states should meet in an amendment convention anyway. IIRC, that was Michael Farris’ recommendation.

Even Farris thinks the courts may get involved in setting the ground rules for the Convention (see paragraph 4(c) of his PDF). I am not as sanguine as he is that the courts will rule the way he wants them to.

32 posted on 02/18/2014 2:43:10 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
The Constitution does not need to be ammended it just needs to be enforced.

It actually needs to be simplied by getting rid of about a few damaging amendments.

33 posted on 02/18/2014 2:43:40 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
The Constitution does not need to be ammended it just needs to be enforced.

Return the states to the senate and miracles of constitutional enforcement will occur before our eyes.

34 posted on 02/18/2014 2:44:30 PM PST by Jacquerie ( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

I guess the first part of my post wasn’t clear... Let me type slower...

Offer solutions... There are PLENTY of bitchers who jump on Article V threads and tell us how it won’t work and how the 10th is going to solve all our problems... Look around

Voting ALONE won’t work... A repeal of the 17th and a TERM LIMIT amendment would go A LONG way in restoration...


35 posted on 02/18/2014 2:49:08 PM PST by bfh333 ("Hope"... "Change"... You better HOPE you have some CHANGE after the next 4 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
If the 17th Amendment was repealed, if term limits and state review of regulations, statutes and court decisions were added, these are structural changes that could no more be gotten around than two four year presidential terms.

Please read the pdf.

36 posted on 02/18/2014 2:50:09 PM PST by Jacquerie ( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: afsnco
I couldn't agree more.

We don't have a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. Our issue is not too much executive power or a runaway judiciary. It is not too few amendments or too many.

Our problem is with the electorate. We currently have the government we deserve. At the end of the Mitt documentary he says something to that regard. He says Obama is not an aberration. He is the mainstream of American politics. He is what we deserve.

Elections don't affect outcome as much as they do reveal the character of the electorate. If the electorate makes a mistake and votes for someone or some group who is outside the mainstream they will make a correction in the next election. We didn't do that in 2012. Obama is mainstream and the ruler that Americans want and deserve.

Furthermore, your point about the constitution is spot on.

I can't tell you how much it bugs me when I hear conservatives lecture liberals about the tenth amendment or the second amendment. LIBERALS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. You might as well tell them how the Klingon rules of warfare relate to the subject. Then they might actually listen. They feel that the constitution is outdated, was written by a bunch of racist white men and is in no way relevant to anything that happens today. The only time a liberal (or a RINO for that matter) will discuss the constitution is to use it as a weapon against those who still hold it in high esteem. They will then disregard it in any areas in which it is inconvenient (which is most areas for them).

Interestingly, this same thing happens with the Bible and non-believers. They will point out seeming contradictions or passages that appear to support their argument when it is convenient. Other than that they want nothing to do with it and don't use it at all to help form any of their other opinions. Again, they simply use it as a weapon to fight those who actually do believe in it.

So, after all of that complaining, here is the solution...

Pray. Go to church and invite your neighbors. Talk to people about Christ.

Learn. Don't learn what the framers wrote in the constitution. Learn why they believed what they believed. Those philosophies are timeless. They can still be used to make converts to the cause of liberty. We just no longer have the luxury of pointing to the constitution and saying "See that is what we need to do". We now need to go back and explain WHY those principals are correct.

37 posted on 02/18/2014 2:51:58 PM PST by nitzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
I’ve been soundly convince against an Article V route.

It would be a disaster, and wholly ineffective.

I have spent hours researching the Article V COS proposals, and information. I immediatly noticed a truth error mixture, in their information, it continued through all the information I studied. A few mistakes are understandable, but after that it becomes a pattern of deception. I have attended their webinars, (Convention of States The Real Deal, Parts I & II.) they were also filled with misinformation.

If they have such a wonderful plan why are they going to such great lengths to deceive us into believing their plan is the solution to all our problems, with no risk involved.

38 posted on 02/18/2014 2:53:02 PM PST by c-b 1 (Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bfh333

See 37


39 posted on 02/18/2014 2:56:30 PM PST by nitzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I will read the pdf when I have more time. Thanks.


40 posted on 02/18/2014 3:14:33 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: nitzy

A worth endeavor...

But it can NOT be the only strategy to at least slow the tide... Popular Culture & Media are our enemies and reach MANY MORE than ONE individual can do...

We’re going to have to Cloward/Piven DC...


41 posted on 02/18/2014 3:14:38 PM PST by bfh333 ("Hope"... "Change"... You better HOPE you have some CHANGE after the next 4 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: c-b 1

You should document & elaborate on what you discovered... Telling us about it won’t be enough...


42 posted on 02/18/2014 3:15:52 PM PST by bfh333 ("Hope"... "Change"... You better HOPE you have some CHANGE after the next 4 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: c-b 1

Yes, when you HAVE to sell a product, the negatives get shoved aside.


43 posted on 02/18/2014 3:15:54 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Mark for later.


44 posted on 02/18/2014 3:25:03 PM PST by matthew fuller (The GOP is dead- Long Live the TEA Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

The JBS does not like Article V’s provision that allows the States to unilaterally propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution.

It’s disapproval wouldn’t be necessary for fear of how far the Left would pursue, no, push an agenda.. at any cost.


45 posted on 02/18/2014 3:31:40 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi - Revolution is a'brewin!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Thank you Jacquerie. Be strong, the negatives in this thread can be depressing.


46 posted on 02/18/2014 4:36:52 PM PST by GILTN1stborn ( #rememberbenghazi #extortion17 #impeachobama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
The Supreme Court has devolved into a permanent Constitutional Convention all by it's lonesome. Thus we have the important check that might have spared us this unworkable Socialist experiment stand unsteadily on a rationalized decision made by one man, the Chief Justice.
47 posted on 02/18/2014 4:42:06 PM PST by Prospero (Si Deus trucido mihi, ego etiam fides Deus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prospero
Yes, Marx is beating Madison. He's winning because too many believe we can beat him at home, on his home field turf, Washington, DC.

However, via Article V we can force Marx to fight on our field of battle, among the states. We have a chance. It is our last chance.

48 posted on 02/18/2014 5:21:42 PM PST by Jacquerie ( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Yes, it is clear from Madison's notes that Mason was there until the final day of the convention:

(Under date of Monday, Sept. 17:) "The Constitution being signed by all the members except Mr. Randolph, Mr. Mason, and Mr. Gerry who declined giving it the sanction of their names, the Convention dissolved itself by an Adjournment sine die--"

Mason had spoken on the previous day they met (Sat., Sept. 15).

49 posted on 02/18/2014 6:01:41 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

A COS would NOT be limited to proposing amendments. They could rewrite the constitution, artificial constraints aside. The Articles of Confereration were similarly transformed into the Constitution.


50 posted on 02/18/2014 6:35:19 PM PST by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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