To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

You say you disagree, but then don't indicate why. I submit that the reason you do not provide any rationale is that you there is not actually one, and you're just repeating the habituation you've been subjected to annually like Pavlov's dog.

Well, mostly because it was late and I wanted to make it a quick post — but look here, you've revealed yourself as not only willing, but eager, to impute upon me unthinking/brainwashed (and ill-will?). Something I suspected given your post #239 wherein you talk out of both sides of your mouth regarding incorporation.

But, since you ask about why I disagree it is this: your assertion that wages are merely equivalent exchange of labor for money is actually the model wherein a person's labor has no intrinsic worth. You see, given a pile of wood, tools, and a laborer the resultant dog-house's value is not merely cost+labor, but cost+labor+utility. This is to say that the usefulness of the work is also a factor and why a brain-surgeon's wage is not going to be equal to a short-order cook's. — moreover, there is also the agreement with the employer (who in essence judges the utility of the laborer), there is a parable in the bible where a group of people were operating under your:

(Matthew 20:1-16)
“For the Kingdom of Heaven is like the landowner who went out early one morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay the normal daily wage and sent them out to work. “At nine o’clock in the morning he was passing through the marketplace and saw some people standing around doing nothing. So he hired them, telling them he would pay them whatever was right at the end of the day. So they went to work in the vineyard. At noon and again at three o’clock he did the same thing. “At five o’clock that afternoon he was in town again and saw some more people standing around. He asked them, ‘Why haven’t you been working today?’ “They replied, ‘Because no one hired us.’ “The landowner told them, ‘Then go out and join the others in my vineyard.’ “That evening he told the foreman to call the workers in and pay them, beginning with the last workers first. When those hired at five o’clock were paid, each received a full day’s wage. When those hired first came to get their pay, they assumed they would receive more. But they, too, were paid a day’s wage. When they received their pay, they protested to the owner, ‘Those people worked only one hour, and yet you’ve paid them just as much as you paid us who worked all day in the scorching heat.’ “He answered one of them, ‘Friend, I haven’t been unfair! Didn’t you agree to work all day for the usual wage? Take your money and go. I wanted to pay this last worker the same as you. Is it against the law for me to do what I want with my money? Should you be jealous because I am kind to others?’ “So those who are last now will be first then, and those who are first will be last.”

To assert that there is only the fundamental exchange equivalency WRT work and wage is to set up the foundation for a framework of labor-laws which would strip the hirer of the ability (a) to evaluate the utility of the labor [and laborer] and [when aggressively enforced] (b) to be generous.

A sales tax is not the same thing as a tax on personal income, and by that we've already invited the federal government "into every financial transaction" and also enabled the Social Engineering of the welfare state.

Again, I disagree — the income tax is a single point: when the laborer is paid — the sales tax is essentially every financial transaction in the commercial sector. (Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state — that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment.)

A tax on income is undeniably a direct tax to the individual, and as required by the Constitution, even after the 16th Amendment, all (other) direct taxes must be applied the States proportionally.

The graduated/progressive income tax is therefore a violation — while it could be argued that a flat tax rate is proportional (on income, rather than the debt's amount). Amendment 16 says: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. — by that, it seems that a income tax may indeed be without proportion.

As far as independent presentments being inappropriately removed as valid process, that never occurred by any law, or even official precedure, but actually occurred as a result of the Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and not actually a part of that Rule 7 itself, but rather only a Note 4 to Rule 7 by the Avisory Committee,

Ah, and does that not stink more? After all the power of presentment is mentioned in Amendment 5, so to remove it should require a Constitutional amendment, no?

Much like the decision of Sparf, the right of nullification by the jury exists but there's no obligation to inform of the right... and the judge can apparently declare a mistrial if it is brought up by an officer of the court. So, by forced ignorance, the right is lost.

But, in short, I do not believe that the current relation of the government to the jury (either grand or petite) is healthy or as it should be. You yourself brought up the indict a ham sandwich saying, and that is directly a result of stripping away the power of presentment because all that leaves the Grand Jury with is the indictment. So, like the Federal Reserve whose only tool is print money! the grand jury can only indict under this system. As for petite juries, nullification was mentioned, but there's also the will you convict even if you disagree with the law? questionnaire and judges have been known to deny them access to the text of the law.

In short, I do not believe that the juries should be subordinate/dependent on the government — to do so is to make them into rubber-stamp appearance-of-legitimacy style organizations beholden to the government [which even you must agree is corrupt] rather than actually being about justice.

OneWingedShark: "Well, mostly because it was late and I wanted to make it a quick post — but look here, you've revealed yourself as not only willing, but eager, to impute upon me "unthinking"/brainwashed (and ill-will?). Something I suspected given your post #239 wherein you talk out of both sides of your mouth regarding incorporation."

Impute you? particularly? I believe it would be a difficult debate to argue we are not all habituated to dutifully pay income tax, with both politicians and private individuals telling us it is our patriotic duty. I merely indicated that your argument seemed (at that point) to be inured to paying income tax by your indication that it should be limited at a certain percentage, and then followed up by an argument of what I strongly believe the founder's original intent to have been: that taxation on wages was a direct tax and that had to be applied to the states according to the census of enumeration. Not only does this deliberate hurdle prevent the federal government from exercising agendas involving individuals, but it also protects the fact that only the States themselves have direct authority on the citizenry.

I would be fascinated to hear specifically HOW I might be "talking out of both sides of my mouth" regarding 14th Amendment incorporation. I've provided historical evidence and argument as to WHY rights themselves are to be observed by the States, and also the 14th itself overall is odious in that it serves as justification for the federal government to police (and award) rights, when those rights are intended to prohibit government action. Also the final section of the 14th Amendment does not grant Congress any new powers that are not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, and writing laws policing rights and awarding rights do not become "appropriate legislation".

I was presenting a consistent and supported argument, not talking out of both sides of my mouth.

OneWingedShark:"But, since you ask about why I disagree it is this: your assertion that wages are merely equivalent exchange of labor for money is actually the model wherein a person's labor has no intrinsic worth. You see, given a pile of wood, tools, and a laborer the resultant dog-house's value is not merely cost+labor, but cost+labor+utility."

Eh, nowhere a part of my argument does it involve that labor necessarily having the same consistent value, but rather only that the laborer and the employer agree upon the work and the value in advance. If the laborer is making birdhouses from that wood and tools, and suddenly there are others in the market making the same birdhouse, suddenly the time spent building bird houses is of less value because it is in less demand. Under those conditions, the employer might dismiss a number of workers, producing less birdhouses, or he might negotiate to pay the workers less, or perhaps find another market item to build using the wood and tools. However there's a good chance that the new market item, other than the birdhouse, might have a lower market value for the item, given the financial incentive to build that birdhouses rather than the new item in the first place.

None of this diminishes the fact that the labor is exchanged for a recognition of the work itself having a certain (but not necessarily constant) value. By taxing wages, the government is essentially saying that is all profit, ignoring the expense by the laborer of the labor itself.

Your reference to Matthew has no bearing on the argument at hand whatsoever, as it is merely an individual choosing to give laborers more than what was otherwise owed them.

Nowhere does what I argue involve setting up any sort of "foundation for a framework of labor-laws", for a whole range of reasons, but primarily because nowhere do I argue that labor has an absolute value, but rather only that it has an agreed-upon value -- it's called Free Market Capitalism.

OneWingedShark: "Again, I disagree — the income tax is a single point: when the laborer is paid — the sales tax is essentially every financial transaction in the commercial sector. (Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state — that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment."

Congratulations, you've just presented the federal government's own rationalization by which it not only enslaved every one of us, but also reduced our labor to having no value.

As I've indicated, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, despite the existence of the 16th Amendment, the Court went out of its way to assert that the 16th Amendment provided no new taxing authority, insisting that income tax for employment were never a "direct" to-the-person tax, but always an indirect "excise" tax. Yet an excise tax an "event tax" paid upon the event of a purchases of a specific good, such as gasoline. I should not have to go to the extent of arguing the profound difference between employment and purchase of something, but contrary to your claim, by the very fact that wages are reduced to just a "sale", it reduces the labor provided to having no value. Furthermore, unlike the employer who when subject to excise sales tax on those "birdhouses", where the employer can charge more for the value of the birdhouses, the laborer is not free to charge more for the value of his labor to compensate for the theft of that labor by the federal government - which is enslavement.

While wages for labor may be paid at a single point, the "pay period", that is only by convenience, as it is actually earned at every point along the way. However it is a difficult argument that payment for gasoline, or clothes, is at all similar by being an accumulated obligation for use of gasoline or cloths along the way.

As recognized in the 1787 Pennsylvania Ratification contention notes, in being subjected to a direct tax on wages, a worker will pay all that he has to preserve "his head", but with an excise tax on birdhouses or gasoline sales, the provider of these services is not subject to the same sort of coercion. This is why such a direct income tax was recognized as "so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments." Direct taxation essentially enslaves people to the government. Contrary to Obama and others claim that "you didn't build that", I'm quite certain that the federal government is not a partner in my labor, or existence.

What you fundamentally argue for is the legitimacy of that despotism, but then claim foul on my part when I only provided you the explanation that we have all been habituated to the belief in the validity of a direct income tax. If you intend to validate our enslavement by legitimizing a direct personal income tax, then you need to find your own excuse now to do so. Thus far your argument has not provided any such excuse..

OneWingedShark indicated, "Ah, and does that not stink more? After all the power of presentment is mentioned in Amendment 5, so to remove it should require a Constitutional amendment, no?"

You were responding to my reference to "independent presentments" being made by a grand jury, without any direction provided by the Court system. While the 5th Amendment indicates that no person shall be made to answer for a capital crime without " presentment or indictment" by a grand jury, nowhere does that involve that idea that every presentment by a grand jury must followed -- which is a flaw of logic.

Furthermore your argument ignores the penchant for grand juries to "indict a ham sandwich." And, NO, the recognition that the conclusions of grand juries might be flawed, or wrong, does not involve, as you indicate, "stripping away the power of presentment." No such body or singular individual should have that singular authority. Just being "the people" does not grant them with enlightenment or wisdom, as those same "the people" occupy every other position in government too, and all are flawed.

Even the power of indictment held by a legitimate grand jury, does not empower any ad hoc group of individuals calling themselves a grand jury with any authority at all, particularly not extending to anything beyond that group itself. We don't recognize mob rule, in whatever form, no matter what fabricated, corrupt rationalization might be applied to justify it.

While the claim that the independent presentments are no longer valid, is a false fabrication stemming from only one advisory note comment having no legal authority, this does not imply that all presentments must be followed, as they are not necessarily valid. So, no, an amendment to the Constitution is not necessary for the court to ignore an independent presentment.

OneWingedShark indicated, "Ah, and does that not stink more? After all the power of presentment is mentioned in Amendment 5, so to remove it should require a Constitutional amendment, no?"

You were responding to my reference to "independent presentments" being made by a grand jury, without any direction provided by the Court system. While the 5th Amendment indicates that no person shall be made to answer for a capital crime without " presentment or indictment" by a grand jury, nowhere does that involve that idea that every presentment by a grand jury must followed -- which is a flaw of logic.

Furthermore your argument ignores the penchant for grand juries to "indict a ham sandwich." And, NO, the recognition that the conclusions of grand juries might be flawed, or wrong, does not involve, as you indicate, "stripping away the power of presentment." No such body or singular individual should have that singular authority. Just being "the people" does not grant them with enlightenment or wisdom, as those same "the people" occupy every other position in government too, and all are flawed.

Even the power of indictment held by a legitimate grand jury, does not empower any ad hoc group of individuals calling themselves a grand jury with any authority at all, particularly not extending to anything beyond that group itself. We don't recognize mob rule, in whatever form, no matter what fabricated, corrupt rationalization might be applied to justify it.

While the claim that the independent presentments are no longer valid, is a false fabrication stemming from only one advisory note comment having no legal authority, this does not imply that all presentments must be followed, as they are not necessarily valid. So, no, an amendment to the Constitution is not necessary for the court to ignore an independent presentment.

First off, Section V of the proposal means that this is not an ad hoc group, but rather sets forth the means by which a valid grand jury is to be instituted. Moreover, Section 4 obviously does not prohibit the members of a Grand Jury from facing justice as well as preventing the courts from meddling with the composition thereof. — As far as I can tell you wish that the grand jury is placed squarely in subordination to the judiciary.

If the grand jury's composition and actions are restricted to those acts and members which the judiciary approves, is it at all unreasonable to assume that their actions and membership will be constrained to that which profits the judge? And if so, then is it not exceedingly unlikely that a criminal wearing a black robe, wrapping himself in law, will ever be brought to justice (especially as they gather to themselves more and more power)?

OneWingedShark: "Again, I disagree — the income tax is a single point: when the laborer is paid — the sales tax is essentially every financial transaction in the commercial sector. (Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state — that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment."

Congratulations, you've just presented the federal government's own rationalization by which it not only enslaved every one of us, but also reduced our labor to having no value.

As I've indicated, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, despite the existence of the 16th Amendment

Either a constitutional amendment alters the Constitution or it does not, if the former then to say The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. means that the Congress has that power regardless of what the previous state of the Constitution was, correct? Now, given that it says without apportionment this means that the power so referred is not bound by apportionment; and to say without regard to any census or enumeration means that it is without regard to census or enumeration.

That the court says it gave no new powers is irrelevant and misleading — the removal of qualifications/restrictions on the power of taxation is technically not granting a new power… but it certainly is expanding the power into scopes it previously was not and to those areas which it was previously forbidden the power is new. (Just like breaking a dam and letting water into a new area does not create new water might indeed create a new lake which is, indeed, water.)

I would be fascinated to hear specifically HOW I might be "talking out of both sides of my mouth" regarding 14th Amendment incorporation.

Where you say: That doctrine of "incorporation" was only the "magic" fabrication by which the Federal government justified its usurpation of an authority to police rights when those rights were specifically listed in the Constitution to exclude any federal government action whatsoever. However those rights themselves are also equally applicable to the States themselves.

What you are doing is validating the textual transformation of the Constitution and applying it w/o an amendment. — i.e. the "magic" of a living constitution as 'enlivened' by judicial activism rather than actual amendment. *spit*

In short, words mean things, to take the 1st and alter "Congress" to mean any portion of government, federal or state is to deny the possible necessity of an actual amendment. (After all, if it is based on a preexisting right, and all such rights are applicable to both federal and state then that right must apply to the State as well, right? So, if there is, eg, a right to marriage then the Courts can obviously impose homosexual marriage, right?) Not at all.

Or, to put it another way, not all of the preexisting rights are natural. The 7th amendment provides a jury trial for common law controversies exceeding $20 — is there some human property that makes $20 relevant? Is there some magic to a jury trial? (The primary advantage of the jury is, in fact, that they are distinct and separate from the judge and, as they decide the verdict, removing from them a large temptation towards corruption.)

Moreover, the Bill of Rights was a creation of the states to be applied "against" the federal government — this is obvious from the preamble:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

Finally, incorporation is terrible because it elevates the courts above the Constitution. We've already seen that they elevate themselves above the law, so why not the supreme law?

I believe it would be a difficult debate to argue we are not all habituated to dutifully pay income tax, with both politicians and private individuals telling us it is our patriotic duty. I merely indicated that your argument seemed (at that point) to be inured to paying income tax by your indication that it should be limited at a certain percentage, and then followed up by an argument of what I strongly believe the founder's original intent to have been: that taxation on wages was a direct tax and that had to be applied to the states according to the census of enumeration. Not only does this deliberate hurdle prevent the federal government from exercising agendas involving individuals, but it also protects the fact that only the States themselves have direct authority on the citizenry.

Hm, I see what you mean.
I still believe that a national sales-tax would be setting up for something far, far worse.

I wouldn't be opposed to the federal government taxing the states who then collect in the manner they chose, but even with that I believe that their power should be limited: no graduated rates, no seizing of property prior to conviction, a limit to the maximum any income tax might have — IOW, the things addressed in my proposed amendment.

OneWingedShark previously commented, "Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state — that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment.

I forgot to address this comment in my previous response..

I do not see how the welfare state would at all be "resolved" by 1) a move to a physically-based currency, and/or 2) limitation on the amount of debt assumed.

Neither having a currency based on physical asset, nor any limit to debt would at all effect the welfare state in any way. These are both falsehoods, based on.. I-don't-know-what.

The only thing that would directly affect that welfare state is to get the government out of exercising 'agendas" whatsoever by limiting the government exclusively to the enumerated powers. Those enumerated powers do not provide for a welfare state, and do not allow government to write Any LAWS directly applicable to the citizenry of the several States. This would prohibit a slate of federal laws now wrongly deemed above and beyond state laws, prohibit "hate crime" legislation, and would prohibit the EPA, FDA, DOI, USDA, and a host of tyrannous government agencies from acting on the people themselves.

And it would prohibit anyone in the government from pronouncing that they would make the price of energy "necessarily skyrocket". There would be no federal authority to advance the corrupt fabrication of anthropogenic "Climate Change", even having the ignorance to declare CO2 a pollutant.

However the Article V proponents entirely IGNORE those existing enumerated powers, instead implicitly validating unrestrained government operating outside the prescribed limits of those powers by their proposed amendments. That is unconscionable, exceedingly ignorant and creates an unrecoverable destruction to our Liberty.

Thereby we "the people", from the actions of those "delegates", a bunch of unknown and unelected buffoons, would have our implied consent, yet nowhere provided and often contrary to our will. What a Convention of the States is a sure-fire cure for is finding cause for bloody, violent revolution, wherein those delegates themselves are the enemy. (I do not believe it a coincidence that the map for Jade Helm 15 indicates red areas of the southwest to be "hostile" or "insurgent", and these corresponding to areas more likely to reject fundamental changes to the Constitution.)

There's no direct correlation whatsoever between the existence of a welfare state and the currency not being tied to a commodity. Furthermore, if the government just accumulates more debt (under that welfare state), it will then demand ever-more taxes. And you seem okay to shackle our employment wages with that debt, harnessed slaves pulling along that the welfare state with our every breath.

There should be no taxation on personal labor wages whatsoever. Taxation on income from properties or investments are another story.

OneWingedShark: "First off, Section V of the proposal means that this is not an ad hoc group, but rather sets forth the means by which a valid grand jury is to be instituted. Moreover, Section 4 obviously does not prohibit the members of a Grand Jury from facing justice as well as preventing the courts from meddling with the composition thereof. — As far as I can tell you wish that the grand jury is placed squarely in subordination to the judiciary."

Malarkey! Section V of your proposed Grand Jury amendment indicates that, "The local Sheriff of each county shall appoint the members of the federal Grand Jury for that county.." If somehow you imagine that the Sheriff appointing them makes this group not be any sort of "ad hoc" group, and one deliberately chosen for their beliefs, you're off your rocker! What you've provided license for is those angry mobs in Ferguson to be their own grand jury, provided they only can force someone of like-mind into the office of Sheriff. Then you further worsen an extremely bad idea by making the duration of that Grand Jury, appointed by a single person, be the duration of that Sheriff's own term in office -- creating nothing but a "King's Court". Nice job! We need more tiny fiefdoms; that will surely fix everything!

Perhaps some dolt told you that the Sheriff is the only law enforcement officer recognized by the Constitution, and from some mistakenly imagine that those Sheriffs are somehow mystically endowed with anf innate wisdom and regard for that Constitution. People need to get out more, and learn more, as this is quite obviously not the case. Furthermore, no rational individual would want BOTH the policing and then ALSO legal prosecution to be based on the same source - an individual Sheriff -- talk about a corrupt system, resulting in a Kangaroo Court mob rule. All we need then is to remove all sentencing guidelines and we can have the death penalty for parking violations outside the Sheriff's home!

I apologize for my lack of diplomacy in needing to state this so directly, but this idea is nothing short of galactically stupid.

(No people are not seated on a grand jury based on any sort of "Judiciary approval", and when actually hearing a case the prosecution and defence are each entitled to challenge the seating grand jury members.)

Your side comment section on the Grand Juries, already shows you do not understand grand juries, the legal system, common law, and the Magna Carta, all while fabricating your own history of this country. This is only part of why having an Article V convention right now is such an extremely bad idea, ignoring those who fully intend the overthrow of our form of government, not just doing so by unintended ignorance.

OneWingedShark: "Either a constitutional amendment alters the Constitution or it does not, if the former then to say The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. means that the Congress has that power regardless of what the previous state of the Constitution was, correct? Now, given that it says without apportionment this means that the power so referred is not bound by apportionment; and to say without regard to any census or enumeration means that it is without regard to census or enumeration."

My comment, which you quoted, was specifically addressing the Court's corrupt indication in Stanton vs Baltic Mining Company, that a tax to personal income had always been an indirect tax, thereby needing no 16th Amendment, which is untrue. I was NOT commenting about the 16th Amendment itself -- which makes this reference by you to that 16th Amendment entirely irrelevant.

OneWingedShark writes about the "incorporation" of Rights to be applicable to the States, "What you are doing is validating the textual transformation of the Constitution and applying it w/o an amendment. — i.e. the "magic" of a living constitution as 'enlivened' by judicial activism rather than actual amendment. *spit* "

Eh, no. Your own appalling ignorance of the constitutional principle, and this country's history, does not involve any sort of advocacy for a "living Constitution" on my part.

No, the recognition of Rights being applicable to the States involves no such "textual transformation of the Constitution", but rather only necessitates a valid understanding of that document. In FACT the Bill of Rights does not CREATE those rights, but only references them in regard to the construction of the federal government itself, which is the business of the Constitution! Even as indicated in the 9th Amendment itself, there are further rights not so enumerated by the Constitution. Those rights are equally applicable to the States themselves. You're still fundamentally clinging to the corrupt concept that Rights only apply to the federal government because rights are only referenced in the Constitution in their application to the federal government, which is a corrupt understanding, but is a total awesome idea of creating a brave new local despotism, and would fit nicely with your Sheriffs creating their own King's Court grand juries. Bottom line, the only thing being improperly applied to the Constitution is your own failed understanding thereof, and it needs no Amendment to that Bill of Rights to make observation of those Rights applicable to the States -- they already are.

If you would contend otherwise, then please DO show me any writing by the founders whatsoever wherein they indicate it's infinitely preferable to have our rights and property confiscated by the local States, rather than the federal government. Can you do so? No such writing exists, because your interpretation has no basis in rationality, particularly given that those rights are "unalienable".

OneWingedShark: "Or, to put it another way, not all of the preexisting rights are natural. The 7th amendment provides a jury trial for common law controversies exceeding $20 — is there some human property that makes $20 relevant? Is there some magic to a jury trial? (The primary advantage of the jury is, in fact, that they are distinct and separate from the judge and, as they decide the verdict, removing from them a large temptation towards corruption.) "

Had you followed my previous suggestion and read my comment regarding the 7th Amendment, in the fourth comment following that article, you would save yourself enormous hardship, and actually gain some real understanding.

The 7th Amendment provides for a grand jury under concerns initially stipulated to be "under common law". That reference to "common law" indicates that their is no applicable existing law to the consideration. In fact what the 7th Amendment does, under conditions without any existing applicable written law, is to porhibit the Court itself from dictating "what the law is", and instead leaves judgement up to the people. The 7th Amendment actually undermines common law, and common law practice, taking the dictate of the law from the Court itself.

The practice of Courts creating law, is actually what British "common law" is, rather than written laws created by a legislature. That common law is not something sacrosanct, is not a founding principle of this country, and is not the equivalent of our natural law rights. The 7th Amendment most certainly does not validate ad hoc so-called "common law" grand juries.

British“common law” got its name for the laws that were derived from the various decisions made by British circuit court judges, actually empowered to make the law themselves. Originally these judge-derived laws were all made locally. When these local judge-derived laws were recognized by a large number of those various circuit courts, those laws were recognized as being held in common across the land, and thereby given more weight than laws that only had local recognition. Over time these un-codified Court-decreed laws, commonly recognized across Britain, became recognized as the “common law”.

Contrary to your implied claim, nowhere does the 7th Amendment's reference to a Grand Jury involve them being entirely separate from the legal system. Grand Juries are in fact, and by necessity, for our very own security, tied to the legal system.

OneWingedShark: "Finally, incorporation is terrible because it elevates the courts above the Constitution. We've already seen that they elevate themselves above the law, so why not the supreme law? "

Again,"incorporation" is not terrible, because the States should already be obligated to recognize unalienable rights -- our whole country is founded on that principle. The only thing that "incoporation" of the 14th Amendment did was reverse the previous Supreme Court corruption that gross corruption most foul, that indicted the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, and therefore those States are not obligated to recognized those Rights. The 14th Amendment's "incorporation" claim is only vile because it puts the government in the position of policing rights in the States, as well as picking and choosing what rights to recognize, and under what conditions, when those rights are specifically recognized to prohibit any government action whatsoever (inclusive of State government). The obligation of States to recognize rights has nothing whatsoever to do with elevating the Courts above the Constitution.

Neither having a currency based on physical asset, nor any limit to debt would at all effect the welfare state in any way. These are both falsehoods, based on.. I-don't-know-what.

By basing your currency on a physical item you necessarily constrain the maximum availability to that which exists and the difficulty of obtaining the material — scarcity is exactly that realization.
If the amount of debt which can be accumulated is tied to the amount of that physical commodity, then the amount which can come into welfare is necessarily constrained.

However the Article V proponents entirely IGNORE those existing enumerated powers, instead implicitly validating unrestrained government operating outside the prescribed limits of those powers by their proposed amendments. That is unconscionable, exceedingly ignorant and creates an unrecoverable destruction to our Liberty.

Really?
If, for example, the courts usurp the power to regulate intrastate commerce and it becomes entrenched into the legal-system to such a degree that it becomes enshrined into laws — how does one turn that back? Especially when the tainted poison has been accepted to all branches of the government and dissenting views are essentially denied because it lacks standing. (Shut up, peon: the constitution means what we say it does! Get back in line and quit rocking the boat!)

There's no direct correlation whatsoever between the existence of a welfare state and the currency not being tied to a commodity.

But there is a correlation between incurring debt to support welfare and the welfare state. Granted, if you limit what is spent on welfare to payable income you can have some sort of welfare state, but limited… but having an actual limit keeps means that some welfare program cannot be expanded to the "unsustainable" proportions that define a welfare state. In that manner limiting the amount of debt, and the currency, constrains the beast that is welfare.

OneWingedShark: "First off, Section V of the proposal means that this is not an ad hoc group, but rather sets forth the means by which a valid grand jury is to be instituted. Moreover, Section 4 obviously does not prohibit the members of a Grand Jury from facing justice as well as preventing the courts from meddling with the composition thereof. — As far as I can tell you wish that the grand jury is placed squarely in subordination to the judiciary."
Malarkey! Section V of your proposed Grand Jury amendment indicates that, "The local Sheriff of each county shall appoint the members of the federal Grand Jury for that county.." If somehow you imagine that the Sheriff appointing them makes this group not be any sort of "ad hoc" group, and one deliberately chosen for their beliefs, you're off your rocker!

Oh, does this mean that the cabinet is ad hoc because the President makes the appointments? Ridiculous!

What you've provided license for is those angry mobs in Ferguson to be their own grand jury, provided they only can force someone of like-mind into the office of Sheriff.

First, the Sheriff is one of the biggest checks against contraconstitutional government there is, he can stop federal agents and send them packing. (Link)
Second, given that this moves the grand jury from the purview of the federal courts to that of local law-enforcement this makes cases against the federal government enter the realm of possibility again.
Third, I've not said anywhere that any of my ideas are without danger — but given that without changes those in power are disinclined to surrender that power [and likely will need to have it wrested away by force of arms] the dangers are minimal compared to rolling over and accepting the status quo even as it slides ever towards tyranny.

I apologize for my lack of diplomacy in needing to state this so directly, but this idea is nothing short of galactically stupid.

No, continuing to allow the federal government to reign in supremacy especially where the supremacy clause gives no legitimacy is galactically stupid. In order to change that, we need to unchain the institutions they have bound up and bind up the tyrannies that their usurpations have unbound.

Your side comment section on the Grand Juries, already shows you do not understand grand juries, the legal system, common law, and the Magna Carta, all while fabricating your own history of this country. This is only part of why having an Article V convention right now is such an extremely bad idea, ignoring those who fully intend the overthrow of our form of government, not just doing so by unintended ignorance.

Then enlighten me; all you've done so far is assert that I'm wrong.
I do not want an appeal to what we're doing now, I don't even want an appeal to what we've done for 50 or 100 years.
Show me where the Magna Carta and the history there is wrong.

No, the recognition of Rights being applicable to the States involves no such "textual transformation of the Constitution", but rather only necessitates a valid understanding of that document. In FACT the Bill of Rights does not CREATE those rights, but only references them in regard to the construction of the federal government itself, which is the business of the Constitution! Even as indicated in the 9th Amendment itself, there are further rights not so enumerated by the Constitution.

Nowhere did I assert that rights just come from the Bill of Rights.
In fact, your constant assertion that I do assert this, even implicitly, makes me question your intellectual honesty in this discussion.

I believe natural rights exist, and I believe that the Bill of Rights is a codification of the guarantee of recognition of those rights — but, again, not all of those rights mentioned therein are natural rights. A Jury-trial, for example, is not a natural right because it is not inherent in the nature of man — the right to have an opinion and make it known, that is a natural right... the right not to have the law's changes applied retroactively is a natural right, because man is not recognizance and adhering to the whole law today even should it change tomorrow is the best that man can do and man cannot [in general] see in the future what is legal today that might be illegal tomorrow.

But I have not been talking about natural rights, in general, though they do underlie many of the proposed changes:

No tax, fee, fine, or judgement —federal, State, or subdivision of either— shall ever be withheld from any wage. — acknowledges the right a worker has to his wage.
No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied. — Reiterates what the 5th Amendment recognizes: that the stripping of property w/o conviction is unjust.
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction. and
No federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax, fine, or fee by virtue of their position. — reiterates the classical jurisprudence maxim that all are equal before the law.
Fiscal Responsibility Amendment — Limits what another can do in you name, preventing them from inbebting you to the point of slavery.
Commerce Clause Amendment — Sets limits on a power that has been taken wildly out of context. (Have you ever noticed that the interstate commerce lies betwixt foreign and domestic nations? This means that it is the same power over import/export.)

In fact, I find it interesting that you are so vehement against the Grand Jury amendment — are you perchance a judge or lawyer? &mdsah; and instead of being at all constructive in your criticism, you seek to tear down and quite frankly insult me and my work.

OneWingedShark: "By basing your currency on a physical item you necessarily constrain the maximum availability to that which exists and the difficulty of obtaining the material — scarcity is exactly that realization."

If the amount of debt which can be accumulated is tied to the amount of that physical commodity, then the amount which can come into welfare is necessarily constrained.

No, by basing the currency on a real physical item, you stabilize the value of that currency, but only relative to the commodity. However a commodity-based currency does not change the fact that the more can be created, and the alleged value of the currency falls relative to the value of the commodity. This country has done that before too.

Also the "amount of debt that can be accumulated" quite obviously is not relevant to the physical commodity allegedly on-hand, and the amount of debt was not limited by our alleged gold supply when we were on a gold standard. Furthermore the idea that any creditor came and checked that gold when assuming our debt, is also equally ridiculous. The one thing that secured our debt was American industry, and the fact that you and I working with shackles on us pulling that federal tax plow, is the greatest security for debt in the world.

No, currency value and debt are not tied together by any means.

The only thing tying a currency to a commodity does is attempt to stabilize the economy, prevent inflation or deflation of prices, but it does not guarantee a debt-free government. Furthermore limiting the available currency in the populace, which is what keeping the dollar at a static gold value would do, only hurts the economy by prohibiting investment and growth. Whereas having an over-abundance of currency in an economy causes that inflation. Therefore a currency's staility is a result of it's acessibility relative to the size of the population. Tying the dollar to gold again makes no sens.

The colonies had extraordinary productivity when they operated under their own colonial script. The problem resulted when Britain saw this productivity, all without the use of the British Pound, and reacted by flooding the colonial society with counterfeit script.

Today we have a worse problem: our dollar is based on a false debt to a private entity that has no authority to claim debt owed for the creation of an essentially worthless commodity (currency).

A currency is nothing more than another commodity being traded for, and is in constant flux relative to a variety of commodities. However that currency is alot more preferable to carry around and trade with rather than a farmer carrying his hens, or a carpenter toting a cabinet, etc.

OneWingedShark (Regarding Article V proponents ignoring the enumerated powers):

"Really?
If, for example, the courts usurp the power to regulate intrastate commerce and it becomes entrenched into the legal-system to such a degree that it becomes enshrined into laws — how does one turn that back? Especially when the tainted poison has been accepted to all branches of the government and dissenting views are essentially denied because it lacks standing. (Shut up, peon: the constitution means what we say it does! Get back in line and quit rocking the boat!)"

The Courts cannot usurp the power to regulate interstate commerce, because the Constitution indicates that the federal government exclusively has that authority. iF you tried to run with that argument at a Constitutional Convention, you'd look like the day's sacrificial lamb to the opposition. The problem is not the authority itself, but the clearly intended meaning of "regulate". But knowing enough about the Constitution to recognize what that "regulate" means in terms of the federal government's authority, takes entirely too much work for the Article V peons, so they'd rather just write their own Constitution add-ons. Obviously you don't "turn that back" by writing more Constitution.

The fact of the matter is that the federal government is already prohibited from doing what it is doing by the existing terms of the Constitution, therefore writing "more Constitution" is not even close to a valid response. An Article V Convention is nowhere close to the proper tool for the job at hand. In fact there is no easy, convenient tool available at all, given the fact that the government is deliberately in disregard of the Constitution, and not there merely be accident of circumstance. An Article V convention only aids the overthrow of the Constitution, and puts our Liberty and unalienable rights at extreme risk, which is the intent of the globalist-statists.

When you're doing precisely what the enemy expects you to do, you're playing the wrong game, and it's time to change the rules. When you have quite literally ZERO chance of positive outcome, and enormous likelihood of horrific outcome destroying this nation forever, the only resonsible decision is to walk away and not play the game by those terms. However Article V Proponents like hitching their hopes to false fantasies, irregardless of the risk. Yes, "really".

OneWingedShark: "But there is a correlation between incurring debt to support welfare and the welfare state. Granted, if you limit what is spent on welfare to payable income you can have some sort of welfare state, but limited… but having an actual limit keeps means that some welfare program cannot be expanded to the "unsustainable" proportions that define a welfare state. In that manner limiting the amount of debt, and the currency, constrains the beast that is welfare. "

Actually there only appears to be a correlation, the actual correlation to America's debt and the "unexplainable" loss of tillions of dollars is slightly less than six 18 months time, is actually far more serious than the welfare state. The actual cause is something Kennedy warned us about as the "military industrial complex", and it's actually what is running our government now, not the elected stuffed pigeons that serve as our public distraction. And the actual motivation is far more ominous than some repachaged Marxist "Progressives" wanting to spread the wealth around, and handing out our productivity to others.

As a result, an Article V Convention isn't even the right ballpark for the game being played. As indicated, zero chance of success.

OneWingedShark: "Oh, does this mean that the cabinet is ad hoc because the President makes the appointments? Ridiculous! "

You mean that the Cabinet to the President of the United States, recognized under law, might have ANY POSITIVE CORRELATION AT ALL with an "ad hoc" bunch of miscreants with a preconceived agreement, and no publicly recognized authority, joining together to try and dictate others lives? Good luck with that one!

Terry Trussell, once of Operation American Spring, is sitting in jail in Florida with FOURTEEN FELONIES against him, and near certainty of spending the remainder of his life behind bars, with the majority of the charges involving his having "simulated legal process" with a common law grand jury. Given that Trussel's condition is so clear-cut, rather than ignoring the obvious, perhaps at least considering trying something entirely original, such as simulating a Presidential Cabinet Meeting. If nothing else, I hear the food is mildly better in a federal prison.

Sadly, part of the reason these "common law" grand juries have so many people convinced, is because they don't have clue what "common law" means, and imagine it might be a guiding principle of this country they just don't understand, and they appear to be an easy, safe solution However there are many among us who do understand, and would not hesitate to shoot those grossly "under-educated" miscreants the minute they threaten our lives and property, whether they are forming a "common law grand jury" or going into to aid and abet the overthrow of our form of government and our unalienable rights at an Article V Convention.

You might consider actually pausing to contemplate a response, before throwing out such an ill-considered argument as this.

OneSingedWhark: "First, the Sheriff is one of the biggest checks against contraconstitutional government there is, he can stop federal agents and send them packing. (Link)
Second, given that this moves the grand jury from the purview of the federal courts to that of local law-enforcement this makes cases against the federal government enter the realm of possibility again.
Third, I've not said anywhere that any of my ideas are without danger — but given that without changes those in power are disinclined to surrender that power [and likely will need to have it wrested away by force of arms] the dangers are minimal compared to rolling over and accepting the status quo even as it slides ever towards tyranny. "

Actually, the idea that Sheriffs might serve as a check against federal authority (only in their county), is something that has worked out only sometimes. They reality is that Sheriffs are every bit as ignorant about the Constitution as are other Americans.

Contrary to your indication, which is the ONLY relevant commentary here (not to distract you from hunting daisies in the pasture), Sheriffs are not imbued with unerring ethic and regard for the Constitution as a result of holding that office.

Furthermore for a guy who is so eager to corrupt the legal system by mixing the policing authority with the judicial authority, you've got no legitimacy in making claim to any sort of constitutional "checks".

OneWingedShark: "No, continuing to allow the federal government to reign in supremacy especially where the supremacy clause gives no legitimacy is galactically stupid. In order to change that, we need to unchain the institutions they have bound up and bind up the tyrannies that their usurpations have unbound."

While it's fun to make vague allusions to the Constitution without any specific reference or application, but the passage you quoted to make your above response was concerning the fabrication of Grand Jury falsely pretending to be a legitimate legal processes.

Furthermore, the State sovereignty has nothing whatsoever to do with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which is not really applicable to this discussion regarding "Grand Juries". Given this utter lack of relevance, I have to wonder if you have any real grasp of what that Supremacy Clause actually indicates.

OneWIngedShark (regarding Grand Juries): "Then enlighten me; all you've done so far is assert that I'm wrong.
I do not want an appeal to what we're doing now, I don't even want an appeal to what we've done for 50 or 100 years.
Show me where the Magna Carta and the history there is wrong."

No, thus far I've indicated you're wrong, and WHY you're wrong. I've also twice now provided you the specific link to an extensive and supported article I've written.

My job is not to hold your hand and walk you down the primrose path of education. Either you go there yourself, and at least attempt to understand the arguments, or you choose to be ignorant of them. If nothing else, I would think you would want to learn what that enigmatic "common law" actually is. And if I were you, I would certainly want to do a rewrite of the side-notes for the Grand Jury amendment. While I wont waste my effort forcibly educating you, if you sincerely wanted help understanding a consideration, I'd gladly invest whatever time was necessary.

Third time's the charm: "Are Common Law Grand Juries Valid?"

I don't just write articles. I've been on-air numerous times to discuss these issues, addressed various public forums, and involved in numerous personal discussions, even having an extended discussion with Sheriff Maack.

I have no idea what you mean by "an appeal to what we're doing now". Who is this "we" you're referring to, and what is that "we" allegedly doing now? This tiny failure to communicate clearly, much less understand accurately, is why no one should be allowed anywhere near a Constitutional Convention. We cannot afford such inexactness when writing further Constitution.

The Magna Carta is the least of your worrries. However you are not alone in falsely elevating that Magna Carta to be some marvellous document recognizing individual rights, when it does no such thing. It is a Medieval fuedal document, in which King John made limited accommodations to only specified rebelling landed Barons, in which he alone said he would provide them these allowances, and they had no basis in any sort of expectant right. In fact John's allowances lasted less than a year, because John made another agreement to Pope Innocent III promising him fealty if the Pope would free him of that obligation.

The idea that the Magna Carta is some protection of ancient personal liberties is nothing but a grossly inaccurate political myth. But don't take it personally: even my brilliant grandfather, a renowned surgeon told me that myth when I was very young. Even brilliant people can be extremely ignorant and uninformed.

OneWingedShark (In reference to 14th Amendment's "incorporation" of rights for the States): "Nowhere did I assert that rights just come from the Bill of Rights.
In fact, your constant assertion that I do assert this, even implicitly, makes me question your intellectual honesty in this discussion."

It does not matter what you yourself directly asserted. The fact of the matter is that the claim of the 14th Amendment "incorporating" the recognition of Rights by the States UNDENIABLY relies on the belief that those Rghts are grants/allowances to us from the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Furthermore, you rejection of that incorporation of rights to the States, has you directly arguing that State sovereignty should allow them to ignore those rights --- which STILL inherently involves your argument recognizing those Rights as originating from the Constitution!

If you don't grasp this on your own, then we should not be engaging any further discussion on this particular topic of where our Rights originate from until you do grasp it.

OneWIngedShark: "I believe natural rights exist, and I believe that the Bill of Rights is a codification of the guarantee of recognition of those rights — but, again, not all of those rights mentioned therein are natural rights. A Jury-trial, for example, is not a natural right because it is not inherent in the nature of man — the right to have an opinion and make it known, that is a natural right... the right not to have the law's changes applied retroactively is a natural right, because man is not recognizance and adhering to the whole law today even should it change tomorrow is the best that man can do and man cannot [in general] see in the future what is legal today that might be illegal tomorrow."

It's great that you believe natural rights exist, but what your personal belief may be is irrelevant to my certainty I will not have those rights forfeit by others ignorant actions.

"Natural law" and rights recognized under "natural law", do not have anything to do with "the inherent nature of man". Man's inherent nature is to accumulate all he can for himself, and to deny others what is not his own, and even to commit murder.

The "inherent nature of man" has nothing to do with natural law. The inherent nature of man is why this nation's founders intended to prohibit any office or branch of the government from having any unrestrained authority. The inherent nature of man is why every branch and office of the government now disregards those constraints.

Natural law recognizes self evident facts, as in "we old these truths to be self-evident" (Declaration of Independence). It is a self evident fact that every living thing has a righ to defined its life with any lethal force necessary. We have a right to act on the world about us provided that our own actions do in impinge on the rights of others. We have the uncontestable self-ownership of our own bodies, and from this self-ownership all other rights flow, thereby making ObamaCare entirely invalid

It is a self-evident fact that no man wants a court fabricating on the fly "what the law is" and then adjudging his guilt by that new law only there fabricated by the Court. Here in this country we, recognize this common law approach as inherently tyrannous, and that's why we have our own laws written down. Therefore the founders recognized in the 7th Amendment that, where there is no applicable law, then a jury of one's peers should decide the conflict before it, rather than any judge.

OneWingedShark: "But I have not been talking about natural rights, in general, though they do underlie many of the proposed changes:

No tax, fee, fine, or judgement —federal, State, or subdivision of either— shall ever be withheld from any wage. — acknowledges the right a worker has to his wage.
No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied. — Reiterates what the 5th Amendment recognizes: that the stripping of property w/o conviction is unjust.
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction. and
No federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax, fine, or fee by virtue of their position. — reiterates the classical jurisprudence maxim that all are equal before the law.
Fiscal Responsibility Amendment — Limits what another can do in you name, preventing them from inbebting you to the point of slavery.
Commerce Clause Amendment — Sets limits on a power that has been taken wildly out of context. (Have you ever noticed that the interstate commerce lies betwixt foreign and domestic nations? This means that it is the same power over import/export.)

Most of these have nothing even vaguely to do with protection of real natural law rights. None of them to anything at all to restore legitimate governance. They're just treating the symptoms while turning a blind eye to the disease, thereby validating the corruption.

OneWingedShark: "In fact, I find it interesting that you are so vehement against the Grand Jury amendment — are you perchance a judge or lawyer? &mdsah; and instead of being at all constructive in your criticism, you seek to tear down and quite frankly insult me and my work. "

I am vehemently against that Grand Jury amendment, because it entirely guts the rule of law, falsely elevates ad hoc mob rule to being the incontestable dictate of the country, and is a threat to everyone's freedoms, property and very lives. I did "constructive" over in my article and numerous other responses on this and other forums. You had a chance to read "constructive" in my first two references to common law grand juries, but you declined to even go to the site.

I don't insult you personally. I tell you the frank truth of the value of "your work", and right now I am doing so with much less of my previous diplomacy, because you've earned it by our own objectionable comments, such as asserting I support a living Constitution. If you believe I am unloading on you, this is nowhere close to how harsh I might be on this subject matter. And don't take it personally, you are by no means alone in that boat. I'm sure you're fundamentally a decent guy, you just really need to educate yourself far more, particularly if you pretend the insight to write amendments to the Constitution.

In fact I am no lawyer, although I once had every intention to be one. I was actually born while my father was attending a prestigious law school, and am told my first playpen was stacked law books on the floor. However that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that I've been arguing with at least one highly qualified attorney all my life, and in my own line of work, I became the preferred person to give testimony to court because of my understanding of how to present evidence, and argue a position.

The fact is this isn't about just restoring legitimate government. This is about far more. Right now we stand at our very last chance, our last hope, to preserve this country and individual freedoms, and it is a piss poor time to choose Constitutional suicide via an Article V Convention. It doesnt get any more serious than this, but some take even modification to the Constitution entirely too lightly.

OneWingedShark: "By basing your currency on a physical item you necessarily constrain the maximum availability to that which exists and the difficulty of obtaining the material — scarcity is exactly that realization."

If the amount of debt which can be accumulated is tied to the amount of that physical commodity, then the amount which can come into welfare is necessarily constrained.

No, by basing the currency on a real physical item, you stabilize the value of that currency, but only relative to the commodity. However a commodity-based currency does not change the fact that the more can be created, and the alleged value of the currency falls relative to the value of the commodity. This country has done that before too.

Also the "amount of debt that can be accumulated" quite obviously is not relevant to the physical commodity allegedly on-hand, and the amount of debt was not limited by our alleged gold supply when we were on a gold standard. Furthermore the idea that any creditor came and checked that gold when assuming our debt, is also equally ridiculous. The one thing that secured our debt was American industry, and the fact that you and I working with shackles on us pulling that federal tax plow, is the greatest security for debt in the world.

No, currency value and debt are not tied together by any means.

The only thing tying a currency to a commodity does is attempt to stabilize the economy, prevent inflation or deflation of prices, but it does not guarantee a debt-free government. Furthermore limiting the available currency in the populace, which is what keeping the dollar at a static gold value would do, only hurts the economy by prohibiting investment and growth. Whereas having an over-abundance of currency in an economy causes that inflation. Therefore a currency's staility is a result of it's acessibility relative to the size of the population. Tying the dollar to gold again makes no sens.

The colonies had extraordinary productivity when they operated under their own colonial script. The problem resulted when Britain saw this productivity, all without the use of the British Pound, and reacted by flooding the colonial society with counterfeit script.

Today we have a worse problem: our dollar is based on a false debt to a private entity that has no authority to claim debt owed for the creation of an essentially worthless commodity (currency).

A currency is nothing more than another commodity being traded for, and is in constant flux relative to a variety of commodities. However that currency is alot more preferable to carry around and trade with rather than a farmer carrying his hens, or a carpenter toting a cabinet, etc.

OneWingedShark (Regarding Article V proponents ignoring the enumerated powers):

"Really?
If, for example, the courts usurp the power to regulate intrastate commerce and it becomes entrenched into the legal-system to such a degree that it becomes enshrined into laws — how does one turn that back? Especially when the tainted poison has been accepted to all branches of the government and dissenting views are essentially denied because it lacks standing. (Shut up, peon: the constitution means what we say it does! Get back in line and quit rocking the boat!)"

The Courts cannot usurp the power to regulate interstate commerce, because the Constitution indicates that the federal government exclusively has that authority. iF you tried to run with that argument at a Constitutional Convention, you'd look like the day's sacrificial lamb to the opposition. The problem is not the authority itself, but the clearly intended meaning of "regulate". But knowing enough about the Constitution to recognize what that "regulate" means in terms of the federal government's authority, takes entirely too much work for the Article V peons, so they'd rather just write their own Constitution add-ons. Obviously you don't "turn that back" by writing more Constitution.

The fact of the matter is that the federal government is already prohibited from doing what it is doing by the existing terms of the Constitution, therefore writing "more Constitution" is not even close to a valid response. An Article V Convention is nowhere close to the proper tool for the job at hand. In fact there is no easy, convenient tool available at all, given the fact that the government is deliberately in disregard of the Constitution, and not there merely be accident of circumstance. An Article V convention only aids the overthrow of the Constitution, and puts our Liberty and unalienable rights at extreme risk, which is the intent of the globalist-statists.

When you're doing precisely what the enemy expects you to do, you're playing the wrong game, and it's time to change the rules. When you have quite literally ZERO chance of positive outcome, and enormous likelihood of horrific outcome destroying this nation forever, the only resonsible decision is to walk away and not play the game by those terms. However Article V Proponents like hitching their hopes to false fantasies, irregardless of the risk. Yes, "really".

OneWingedShark: "But there is a correlation between incurring debt to support welfare and the welfare state. Granted, if you limit what is spent on welfare to payable income you can have some sort of welfare state, but limited… but having an actual limit keeps means that some welfare program cannot be expanded to the "unsustainable" proportions that define a welfare state. In that manner limiting the amount of debt, and the currency, constrains the beast that is welfare. "

Actually there only appears to be a correlation, the actual correlation to America's debt and the "unexplainable" loss of tillions of dollars is slightly less than six 18 months time, is actually far more serious than the welfare state. The actual cause is something Kennedy warned us about as the "military industrial complex", and it's actually what is running our government now, not the elected stuffed pigeons that serve as our public distraction. And the actual motivation is far more ominous than some repachaged Marxist "Progressives" wanting to spread the wealth around, and handing out our productivity to others.

As a result, an Article V Convention isn't even the right ballpark for the game being played. As indicated, zero chance of success.

OneWingedShark: "Oh, does this mean that the cabinet is ad hoc because the President makes the appointments? Ridiculous! "

You mean that the Cabinet to the President of the United States, recognized under law, might have ANY POSITIVE CORRELATION AT ALL with an "ad hoc" bunch of miscreants with a preconceived agreement, and no publicly recognized authority, joining together to try and dictate others lives? Good luck with that one!

Terry Trussell, once of Operation American Spring, is sitting in jail in Florida with FOURTEEN FELONIES against him, and near certainty of spending the remainder of his life behind bars, with the majority of the charges involving his having "simulated legal process" with a common law grand jury. Given that Trussel's condition is so clear-cut, rather than ignoring the obvious, perhaps at least considering trying something entirely original, such as simulating a Presidential Cabinet Meeting. If nothing else, I hear the food is mildly better in a federal prison.

Sadly, part of the reason these "common law" grand juries have so many people convinced, is because they don't have clue what "common law" means, and imagine it might be a guiding principle of this country they just don't understand, and they appear to be an easy, safe solution However there are many among us who do understand, and would not hesitate to shoot those grossly "under-educated" miscreants the minute they threaten our lives and property, whether they are forming a "common law grand jury" or going into to aid and abet the overthrow of our form of government and our unalienable rights at an Article V Convention.

You might consider actually pausing to contemplate a response, before throwing out such an ill-considered argument as this.

OneSingedWhark: "First, the Sheriff is one of the biggest checks against contraconstitutional government there is, he can stop federal agents and send them packing. (Link)
Second, given that this moves the grand jury from the purview of the federal courts to that of local law-enforcement this makes cases against the federal government enter the realm of possibility again.
Third, I've not said anywhere that any of my ideas are without danger — but given that without changes those in power are disinclined to surrender that power [and likely will need to have it wrested away by force of arms] the dangers are minimal compared to rolling over and accepting the status quo even as it slides ever towards tyranny. "

Actually, the idea that Sheriffs might serve as a check against federal authority (only in their county), is something that has worked out only sometimes. They reality is that Sheriffs are every bit as ignorant about the Constitution as are other Americans.

Contrary to your indication, which is the ONLY relevant commentary here (not to distract you from hunting daisies in the pasture), Sheriffs are not imbued with unerring ethic and regard for the Constitution as a result of holding that office.

Furthermore for a guy who is so eager to corrupt the legal system by mixing the policing authority with the judicial authority, you've got no legitimacy in making claim to any sort of constitutional "checks".

OneWingedShark: "No, continuing to allow the federal government to reign in supremacy especially where the supremacy clause gives no legitimacy is galactically stupid. In order to change that, we need to unchain the institutions they have bound up and bind up the tyrannies that their usurpations have unbound."

While it's fun to make vague allusions to the Constitution without any specific reference or application, but the passage you quoted to make your above response was concerning the fabrication of Grand Jury falsely pretending to be a legitimate legal processes.

Furthermore, the State sovereignty has nothing whatsoever to do with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which is not really applicable to this discussion regarding "Grand Juries". Given this utter lack of relevance, I have to wonder if you have any real grasp of what that Supremacy Clause actually indicates.

OneWIngedShark (regarding Grand Juries): "Then enlighten me; all you've done so far is assert that I'm wrong.
I do not want an appeal to what we're doing now, I don't even want an appeal to what we've done for 50 or 100 years.
Show me where the Magna Carta and the history there is wrong."

No, thus far I've indicated you're wrong, and WHY you're wrong. I've also twice now provided you the specific link to an extensive and supported article I've written.

My job is not to hold your hand and walk you down the primrose path of education. Either you go there yourself, and at least attempt to understand the arguments, or you choose to be ignorant of them. If nothing else, I would think you would want to learn what that enigmatic "common law" actually is. And if I were you, I would certainly want to do a rewrite of the side-notes for the Grand Jury amendment. While I wont waste my effort forcibly educating you, if you sincerely wanted help understanding a consideration, I'd gladly invest whatever time was necessary.

Third time's the charm: "Are Common Law Grand Juries Valid?"

I don't just write articles. I've been on-air numerous times to discuss these issues, addressed various public forums, and involved in numerous personal discussions, even having an extended discussion with Sheriff Maack.

I have no idea what you mean by "an appeal to what we're doing now". Who is this "we" you're referring to, and what is that "we" allegedly doing now? This tiny failure to communicate clearly, much less understand accurately, is why no one should be allowed anywhere near a Constitutional Convention. We cannot afford such inexactness when writing further Constitution.

The Magna Carta is the least of your worrries. However you are not alone in falsely elevating that Magna Carta to be some marvellous document recognizing individual rights, when it does no such thing. It is a Medieval fuedal document, in which King John made limited accommodations to only specified rebelling landed Barons, in which he alone said he would provide them these allowances, and they had no basis in any sort of expectant right. In fact John's allowances lasted less than a year, because John made another agreement to Pope Innocent III promising him fealty if the Pope would free him of that obligation.

The idea that the Magna Carta is some protection of ancient personal liberties is nothing but a grossly inaccurate political myth. But don't take it personally: even my brilliant grandfather, a renowned surgeon told me that myth when I was very young. Even brilliant people can be extremely ignorant and uninformed.

OneWingedShark (In reference to 14th Amendment's "incorporation" of rights for the States): "Nowhere did I assert that rights just come from the Bill of Rights.
In fact, your constant assertion that I do assert this, even implicitly, makes me question your intellectual honesty in this discussion."

It does not matter what you yourself directly asserted. The fact of the matter is that the claim of the 14th Amendment "incorporating" the recognition of Rights by the States UNDENIABLY relies on the belief that those Rghts are grants/allowances to us from the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Furthermore, you rejection of that incorporation of rights to the States, has you directly arguing that State sovereignty should allow them to ignore those rights --- which STILL inherently involves your argument recognizing those Rights as originating from the Constitution!

If you don't grasp this on your own, then we should not be engaging any further discussion on this particular topic of where our Rights originate from until you do grasp it.

OneWIngedShark: "I believe natural rights exist, and I believe that the Bill of Rights is a codification of the guarantee of recognition of those rights — but, again, not all of those rights mentioned therein are natural rights. A Jury-trial, for example, is not a natural right because it is not inherent in the nature of man — the right to have an opinion and make it known, that is a natural right... the right not to have the law's changes applied retroactively is a natural right, because man is not recognizance and adhering to the whole law today even should it change tomorrow is the best that man can do and man cannot [in general] see in the future what is legal today that might be illegal tomorrow."

It's great that you believe natural rights exist, but what your personal belief may be is irrelevant to my certainty I will not have those rights forfeit by others ignorant actions.

"Natural law" and rights recognized under "natural law", do not have anything to do with "the inherent nature of man". Man's inherent nature is to accumulate all he can for himself, and to deny others what is not his own, and even to commit murder.

The "inherent nature of man" has nothing to do with natural law. The inherent nature of man is why this nation's founders intended to prohibit any office or branch of the government from having any unrestrained authority. The inherent nature of man is why every branch and office of the government now disregards those constraints.

Natural law recognizes self evident facts, as in "we old these truths to be self-evident" (Declaration of Independence). It is a self evident fact that every living thing has a righ to defined its life with any lethal force necessary. We have a right to act on the world about us provided that our own actions do in impinge on the rights of others. We have the uncontestable self-ownership of our own bodies, and from this self-ownership all other rights flow, thereby making ObamaCare entirely invalid

It is a self-evident fact that no man wants a court fabricating on the fly "what the law is" and then adjudging his guilt by that new law only there fabricated by the Court. Here in this country we, recognize this common law approach as inherently tyrannous, and that's why we have our own laws written down. Therefore the founders recognized in the 7th Amendment that, where there is no applicable law, then a jury of one's peers should decide the conflict before it, rather than any judge.

OneWingedShark: "But I have not been talking about natural rights, in general, though they do underlie many of the proposed changes:

No tax, fee, fine, or judgement —federal, State, or subdivision of either— shall ever be withheld from any wage. — acknowledges the right a worker has to his wage.
No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied. — Reiterates what the 5th Amendment recognizes: that the stripping of property w/o conviction is unjust.
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction. and
No federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax, fine, or fee by virtue of their position. — reiterates the classical jurisprudence maxim that all are equal before the law.
Fiscal Responsibility Amendment — Limits what another can do in you name, preventing them from inbebting you to the point of slavery.
Commerce Clause Amendment — Sets limits on a power that has been taken wildly out of context. (Have you ever noticed that the interstate commerce lies betwixt foreign and domestic nations? This means that it is the same power over import/export.)

Most of these have nothing even vaguely to do with protection of real natural law rights. None of them to anything at all to restore legitimate governance. They're just treating the symptoms while turning a blind eye to the disease, thereby validating the corruption.

OneWingedShark: "In fact, I find it interesting that you are so vehement against the Grand Jury amendment — are you perchance a judge or lawyer? &mdsah; and instead of being at all constructive in your criticism, you seek to tear down and quite frankly insult me and my work. "

I am vehemently against that Grand Jury amendment, because it entirely guts the rule of law, falsely elevates ad hoc mob rule to being the incontestable dictate of the country, and is a threat to everyone's freedoms, property and very lives. I did "constructive" over in my article and numerous other responses on this and other forums. You had a chance to read "constructive" in my first two references to common law grand juries, but you declined to even go to the site.

I don't insult you personally. I tell you the frank truth of the value of "your work", and right now I am doing so with much less of my previous diplomacy, because you've earned it by our own objectionable comments, such as asserting I support a living Constitution. If you believe I am unloading on you, this is nowhere close to how harsh I might be on this subject matter. And don't take it personally, you are by no means alone in that boat. I'm sure you're fundamentally a decent guy, you just really need to educate yourself far more, particularly if you pretend the insight to write amendments to the Constitution.

In fact I am no lawyer, although I once had every intention to be one. I was actually born while my father was attending a prestigious law school, and am told my first playpen was stacked law books on the floor. However that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that I've been arguing with at least one highly qualified attorney all my life, and in my own line of work, I became the preferred person to give testimony to court because of my understanding of how to present evidence, and argue a position.

The fact is this isn't about just restoring legitimate government. This is about far more. Right now we stand at our very last chance, our last hope, to preserve this country and individual freedoms, and it is a piss poor time to choose Constitutional suicide via an Article V Convention. It doesnt get any more serious than this, but some take even modification to the Constitution entirely too lightly.

Below is a list of the calls for amendment to the Constitution via Convention of the States, going back to 1787.

The following 29 States are recognized as having an outstanding Call for a convention:

Alaska (2014), Arizona(1996), Arkansas(1977), Delaware(1994), Colorado(1992), Georgia(2014), Idaho(1989), Indiana(1979), Iowa(1979), Kansas(1978), Maryland(1977), Mississippi(1979), Missouri(1994), Nebraska(2010), Nevada(1996), New Hampshire(2012), New Mexico(1979), North Carolina(1979), North Dakota(2015), Oklahoma(1980), Oregon(1979), Pennsylvania(1979), South Carolina(1979), South Dakota(2015), Tennessee(2014), Texas(1979), Utah(1979), Virginia(1977), Wyoming(1963)

Take note, most of these calls are 35 years or older. (Imagine the anger to ensue if the Constitution were overthrown under these terms.)

Alabama, Florida and Louisiana — rescinded their calls for a convention, specifically a balanced budget amendment.

MAGIC NUMBER!: The number of calls needed for a convention is 2/3 of the States, being 34. Currently there are only 29. However if ONLY TWO more States call for a convention, then reports are that Convention proponents plan to litigate to achieve that "magic number" by challenging the legitimacy of Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana having canceled their calls.

WE MUST FIGHT TO STOP EVEN TWO MORE STATES MAKING CALLS FOR CONVENTION!

Apparently a Constitutional Convention of the States is like "Hotel California" - you can checkout any time you like, but you can never leave, nor can you undo what the will undoubtedly do. Given a consistency in their tactics, it is becoming evident that Convention proponents are not the most honest lot. Their claim that "Convention of the States" is legitimate but not "Con Con", is nothing but dishonest propaganda. These proponents are certainly nowhere on par with the benign convention delegates in Philadelphia in 1787, and they overthrew the existing constitution, and did so without by entirely new ratification terms.

**State Applications for an Article V Convention.**
State	Issue/Subject	Date of State's Approval	Reference to Proposal's Text	Class
Virginia	Bill of Rights	November 14, 1788	AC V.1 258-259	(II)
New York	Bill of Rights	February 5, 1789	AC V.1 282Text	(II)
Georgia	Clarify Amendment X	December 12, 1832	J HR V22.2 270-271	II 2004
South Carolina	Clarify Amendment X	December 19, 1832	J HR V22.2 219-220	II 2004
Alabama	Limitation on Tariffs	January 12, 1833	J HR V22.2 361-362	II
New Jersey	Final Resolution for Slavery	February 1, 1861	CG V. 36.2 p. 681	(II)
Kentucky	Final Resolution for Slavery	February 5, 1861	CG V.36.2 p. 773	(II)
Illinois	Final Resolution for Slavery	February 28, 1861	CG V.36.2 p. 1270	(??)
Indiana	General	March 13, 1861?	CG V.37.S 1465-6	I
Ohio	General	March 20, 1861	1861 Ohio Laws 181	I
Nebraska	Direct Election of Senators, Other	April 14, 1893	1893 Neb. Laws 466-7	III
Texas	General Convention	June 5, 1899	CR V.33 p.219	I
Minnesota	Direct Election of Senators, Other	February 13, 1901	CR V.34 p.2561	(III)
Pennsylvania	Direct Election of Senators, II	February 13, 1901	CR V.45 p.7118	(III)
Idaho	Direct Election of President, Vice-President and Senators	February 14, 1901	CR V.45 p.7114	~~III~~ 2000
Montana	Direct Election of Senators, II Direct Election of Senators, II	February 21, 1901 January 31, 1905	CR V.35 p.208 CR V.39 p.2447	~~(III)~~ 2007 ~~(III)~~ 2007
Oregon	Direct Election of Senators, Other Direct Election of Senators, I Direct Election of Senators, Other	February 23, 1901 March 10, 1903 January 26, 1909	CR V.35 p.117 CR V.45 p.7118 CR V.43 p.2025	~~(III)~~ 2000 ~~(III)~~ 2000 ~~(III)~~ 2000
Tennessee	Direct Election of Senators, II Direct Election of Senators, Other	March 27, 1901 March 14, 1905	CR V.35 p.2344 CR V.45 p.7119	~~(III)~~ 2010 ~~(III)~~
Colorado	Direct Election of Senators, I	April 1, 1901	CR V.45 p.7113	(II)
Michigan	Direct Election of Senators, Other	April 9, 1901	CR V.35 p.117	(III)
Texas	Direct Election of Senators, I	April 17, 1901	CR V.45 p.7119	(II)
Arkansas	Direct Election of Senators, Other	April 25, 1901	CR V.45 p.7113	(III)
Kentucky	Direct Election of Senators, II	February 10, 1902	CR V.45 p.7115	(III)
Illinois	Direct Election of Senators, I Direct Election of Senators, Other	February 10, 1903 May 23, 1907	CR V.45 p.7114 CR V.42 p.164	(II) (III)
Nevada	Direct Election of Senators, II	February 25, 1903	CR V.37 p.24	(III)
Utah	Direct Election of Senators, I	March 12, 1903	CR V.45 p.7119	~~(III)~~ 2001
Washington	Direct Election of Senators, Other	March 12, 1903	CR V.45 p.7119	(II)
Nebraska	Direct Election of Senators, I	March 25, 1903	CR V.45 p.7116-7	(III)
Iowa	Direct Election of Senators, I	March 24, 1904	CR V.38 p.4959	(III)
Missouri	Direct Election of Senators, II	March 18, 1905	CR V.40 p.1905	(III)
South Dakota	Direct Election of Senators, Other Direct Election of Senators, I	February 2, 1907 February 9, 1909	CR V.41 p.1907 CR V.43 p.2667-2668	(III) (III)
Delaware	Anti-Polygamy	February 11, 1907	CR V.41 p.3011	III
Missouri	General Convention	March 6, 1907	CR V.45 p.7116	I
Indiana	Direct Election of Senators, Other	March 11, 1907	CR V.45 p.7114	(II)
Iowa	Direct Election of Senators, Other	March 12, 1907	CR V.45 p.7114-5	(II)
Nevada	Direct Election of Senators, I	March 23, 1907	CR V.42 p.163	(II)
New Jersey	Direct Election of Senators, I	May 28, 1907	CR V.42 p.164	(III)
Louisiana	Direct Election of Senators, Other	November 25, 1907	CR V.42 p.5906	~~(II)~~ 1990
Oklahoma	Direct Election of Senators, Other	January 20, 1908	CR V.45 p.7117-8	~~(II)~~ 2009
South Dakota	Anti-Polygamy	February 6, 1909	CR V.43 p.2670	III
Kansas	Direct Election of Senators, I	March 6, 1909	CR V.45 p.7115	(II)
Wisconsin	Direct Election of Senators, I	May 31, 1910?	CR V.45 p.7119-20	(III)
Washington	Anti-Polygamy	September 1, 1910	CR V.46 p.651	III
Montana	Direct Election of Senators, Other	January 20, 1911?	CR V.46 p.2411	~~(II)~~ 2007
Tennessee	Anti-Polygamy	February 17, 1911	CR V.47 p.187	~~III~~ 2010
Maine	Direct Election of Senators, Other	February 22, 1911	CR V.46 p.4280	(III)
Montana	Anti-Polygamy	March 1, 1911	CR V.47 p.98-9	~~III~~ 2007
Nebraska	Anti-Polygamy	March 14, 1911	CR V.47 p.99	III
Ohio	Anti-Polygamy	March 15, 1911	CR V.47 p.660-1	III
Illinois	Anti-Monopoly	May 11, 1911	CR V.47 p.1298	III
Wisconsin	General Convention	June 12, 1911?	CR V.47 p.1873	I
California	Direct Election of Senators, I	June 13, 1911?	CR V.47 p.2000	(??)
Vermont	Anti-Polygamy	December 18, 1912	CR V.49 p.1433	III
Oregon	Anti-Polygamy	January 20, 1913	CR V.49 p.2463	~~III~~ 2000
Illinois	Anti-Polygamy	March 12, 1913	CR V.50 p.121	III
Wisconsin	Anti-Polygamy	March 26, 1913	CR V.50 p.42-3	III
Missouri	Supreme Court Jurisdiction	April 15, 1913	CR V.50 p.2428	III
Michigan	Anti-Polygamy	July 2, 1913	CR V.50 p.2290	III
South Carolina	Anti-Polygamy	February 15, 1915	CR V.53 p.242	~~III~~ 2004
Louisiana	Mode of Amendment, Other	January 12, 1920?	CR V.60 p.31	?? 1990
Nevada	Anti-Prohibition	December 7, 1925?	CR V.67 p.458	(??)
Wisconsin	Direct Election of President and VP	December 7, 1925?	CR V.67 p.458	??
Wisconsin	Article V Conditions Met	September 23, 1929?	CR V.71 p.3856
New Jersey	Anti-Prohibition	February 1, 1931?	CR V.75 p.3299	(III)
Massachusetts	Anti-Prohibition	March 13, 1931?	CR V.75 p.45	(III)
New York	Anti-Prohibition	December 8, 1931?	CR V.75 p.48	(IV)
Wisconsin	Anti-Prohibition	December 23, 1931?	CR V.75 p.57	(III)
California	Tax on Government Securities	January 7, 1935	CR V.79 p.10814	III
California	Federal Labor Laws	January 7, 1935	CR V.79 p.10814	III
Oregon	General Welfare Act of 1937	January 7, 1939?	CR V.84 p.985	~~III~~ 2000
Wyoming	Income Tax, Limit II	March 8, 1939?	CR V.84 p.2509-10	~~III~~ 2009
Maryland	Income Tax, Limit II	March 27, 1939?	CR V.84 p.3320	III
Rhode Island	Income Tax, Limit I	March 26, 1940?	CR V.86 p.3407	III
Maine	Income Tax, Limit I	April 17, 1941	CR V.87 p.3370-1	~~III~~ 1953
Iowa	Income Tax, Limit II	April 18, 1941?	CR V.87 p.3172	III
Massachusetts	Income Tax, Limit I	April 29, 1941	CR V.87 p.3812-3	~~III~~ 1952
Michigan	Income Tax, Limit I	May 16, 1941?	CR V.87 p.4537	III
Iowa	Presidential Term Limits	March 26, 1943?	CR V.89 p.2516	(III)
Illinois	Presidential Term Limits	March 26, 1943?	CR V.89 p.2516-7	(III)
Michigan	Presidential Term Limits	March 26, 1943?	CR V.89 p.2944	(III)
New Hampshire	Income Tax, II	April 29, 1943?	CR V.89 p.3761-2	~~III~~ 2010
Delaware	Income Tax, Limit I	May 3, 1943?	CR V.89 p.4017	III
Illinois	Income Tax, Limit II	May 26, 1943	CR V.98 p.742-3	~~III~~ 1952
Pennsylvania	Limited Funding Mandates, Various	May 27, 1943	CR V.89 p.8220	III
Pennsylvania	Income Tax, Limit II	May 27, 1943?	CR V.89 p.8220	III
Alabama	Income Tax, Limit I	June 8, 1943	CR V.89 p.7523-4	III
Wisconsin	Presidential Term Limits	September 14, 1943?	CR V.89 p.7525	(III)
Wisconsin	Income Tax, Limit I	September 14, 1943?	CR V.89 p.7524	III
New Jersey	Income Tax, Limit I	February 25, 1944	CR V.97 p.10973	~~III~~ 1954
Kentucky	Income Tax, Limit I	March 20, 1944	CR V.90 p.4040-1	~~III~~ 1951
Arkansas	Income Tax, Limit II	March 28, 1945	CR V.98 p.742	III
California	World Federation	April 19, 1949?	CR V.95 p.4568-9	IV
North Carolina	World Federation	April 20, 1949	CR V.95 p.6587-8	IV
New Jersey	World Federation	April 20, 1949?	CR V.95 p.4571	IV
Michigan	Revenue Sharing, II	May 5, 1949?	CR V.89 p.5628-9	IV
Florida	World Federation	May 16, 1949	CR V.95 p.7000	~~III~~ 2010
Nebraska	Revenue Sharing, II	May 25, 1949	CR V.95 p.7893-4	IV 1953
Connecticut	World Federation	June 1, 1949	CR V.95 p.7689	IV
Kansas	Income Tax, Limit I	March 8, 1951	CR V.97 p.2936	III
Iowa	Revenue Sharing, II	May 9, 1951?	CR V.97 p.3939-40	IV
Florida	Income Tax, Limit I	May 10, 1951?	CR V.97 p.5155-6	~~III~~ 2010
Maine	Revenue Sharing, II	June 4, 1951?	CR V.97 p.6033-4	IV
New Hampshire	Revenue Sharing, II	August 28, 1951	CR V.97 p.10716	IV 2010
Georgia	Limited Treaty Powers, Various	January 29, 1952	CR V.98 p.1057	~~III~~ 2004
Georgia	Income Tax, Limit I	February 6, 1952	CR V.98 p.1057	~~III~~ 2004
New Mexico	Revenue Sharing, II	February 11, 1952?	CR V.98 p.947-8	IV
Utah	Income Tax, Limit I	February 11, 1952?	CR V.98 p.947	~~III~~ 2001
Indiana	Income Tax, Limit II Income Tax, Limit II	February 18, 1952? May 12, 1957	CR V.98 p.1056-7 CR V.103 p.6474	III III
Virginia	Income Tax, Limit I	February 21, 1952	CR V.98 p.1496	III
California	Motor Vehicle Tax Distribution	February 22, 1952?	CR V.98 p.4003-4	III
Louisiana	Income Tax, Limit I	January 13, 1953?	CR V.99 p.320	~~III~~ 1954
South Dakota	Mode of Amendment, Other Mode of Amendment, by 12 States Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	March 5, 1953 February 15, 1955 March 2, 1963	CR V.99 p.9180-1 CR V.101 p.2861-2 CR V.109 p.14638-9	IV 2010 IV 2010 ~~III~~ 2010
Illinois	Mode of Amendment, Other Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	June 25, 1953 March 5, 1963?	CR V.97 p.9864 CR V.109 p.3788	IV III
Georgia	School Management, States' Right School Management, States' Right School Management, States' Right	January 31, 1955 February 5, 1959 March 4, 1965	CR V.101 p.1532 CR V.105 p.1834 CR V.111 p.5817	~~III~~ 2004 ~~III~~ 2004 ~~III~~ 2004
Texas	Mode of Amendment, by 12 States Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	March 14, 1955? April 4, 1963	CR V.101 p.2770-1 CR V.109 p.11852	IV III
Oklahoma	Income Tax, Limit Other	May 23, 1955	CR V.101 p.8397-8	~~III~~ 2009
Idaho	Mode of Amendment, by 12 States	April 1, 1956?	CR V.103 p.4831	IV 2000
Michigan	Mode of Amendment, by 12 States	April 4, 1956	CR V.102 p.7241	IV
Indiana	Mode of Amendment, by 12 States	March 12, 1957	CR V.103 p.6471-2	IV
Indiana	Limited Treaty Powers, Various	May 12, 1957	CR V.103 p.6472-3	III
Indiana	Proportional Electoral College, Other	May 12, 1957	CR V.103 p.6473	III
Indiana	Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Other	May 12, 1957 January 26, 1976?	CR V.103 p.6475 CR V.122 p.931	III III
Florida	Supreme Court Review, Other	June 5, 1957	CR V.103 p.12787	~~III~~ 2010
Alabama	Judicial Term Limits	June 25, 1957	CR V.103 p.10863	III
Connecticut	Prohibit Interstate Income Tax	May 6, 1958?	CR V.104 p.8085-6	III
Alabama	Limited Federal Preemption	January 1, 1959?	CR V.105 p.3083	III
Wyoming	Limit Federal Powers	February 20, 1959?	CR V.105 p.3085	~~III~~ 2009
Arkansas	Validity of 14th Amendment	March 18, 1959?	CR V.105 p.4398	III
Nevada	Limit Federal Powers	March 11, 1960	CR V.105 p.10749	III
Louisiana	Limit Federal Powers	June 11, 1960?	CR V.105 p.14401	~~III~~ 1990
Arkansas	Supreme Court Review, Other	February 2, 1961	CR V.107 p.2154	III
Wyoming	Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 21, 1961 February 8, 1979?	CR V.107 p.2759 CR V.125 p.2116	~~III~~ 2009 IV 2009
Georgia	Supreme Court Review, Other	March 9, 1961?	CR V.107 p.4715	~~III~~ 2004
South Carolina	Limit Federal Powers	March 11, 1962?	CR V.108 p.5051	~~III~~ 2004
Oklahoma	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	January 21, 1963	CR V.109 p.1172	~~III~~ 2009
Oklahoma	Apportionment of Legislature, I	January 21, 1963	CR V.109 p.1172-3	~~III~~ 2009
Kansas	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	January 31, 1963	CR V.109 p.2769	~~III~~ 1970
Kansas	Apportionment of Legislature, I	January 31, 1963	CR V.109 p.2769	~~III~~ 1970
Florida	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	February 5, 1963	CR V.109 p.2071-2	~~III~~ 2010
Florida	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	February 5, 1963	CR V.109 p.2072	~~III~~ 2010
Wyoming	Apportionment of Legislature, I	February 9, 1963	CR V.109 p.4779	~~III~~ 2009
Nevada	Apportionment of Legislature, I	February 12, 1963 February 17, 1965?	CR V.109 p.9942	III
Wyoming	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	February 14, 1963	CR V.109 p.4778-9	~~III~~ 2009
Idaho	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	February 14, 1963? January 26, 1965?	CR V.109 p.2281 CR V.111 p.1229	~~III~~ 2000 ~~III~~ 2000
Wyoming	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	February 15, 1963	CR V.109 p.4779	~~III~~ 2009
Arkansas	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	February 21, 1963?	CR V.109 p.2768	III
Arkansas	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	February 21, 1963?	CR V.109 p.2768-9	III
Arkansas	Proportional Electoral College, Other	February 21, 1963?	CR V.109 p.2769	III
Arkansas	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	February 21, 1963? April 5, 1965?	CR V.109 p.2769 CR V.111 p.6917-8	III III
Wisconsin	Proportional Electoral College, I	March 2, 1963	CR V.109 p.14808	III
South Dakota	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	March 2, 1963 March 1, 1965?	CR V.109 p.14639 CR V.111 p.3722-3	~~III~~ 2010 ~~III~~
Idaho	Balanced Budget, Other	March 11, 1963?	CR V.109 p.3855	~~III~~ 2000
South Dakota	Proportional Electoral College, Other	March 11, 1963?	CR V.109 p.3982	??
Montana	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	March 11, 1963? February 15, 1965?	CR V.109 p.3854 CR V.111 p.2777	~~III~~ 2007 ~~III~~ 2007
Alabama	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	March 13, 1963	CR V.109 p.5250	III
Montana	Proportional Electoral College, I	March 25, 1963?	CR V.109 p.4469	~~III~~ 2007
Washington	Apportionment of Legislature, I	March 30, 1963	CR V.109 p.5867	III
Texas	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	April 4, 1963 July 26, 1965	CR V.109 p.11852 CR V.111 p.18171	III III
Utah	Proportional Electoral College, I	April 8, 1963?	CR V.109 p.5947	~~III~~ 2001
Missouri	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	April 8, 1963?	CR V.109 p.5868	III
Missouri	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	April 8, 1963? February 18, 1965?	CR V.109 p.5868 CR V.111 p.3304	III III
Colorado	Proportional Electoral College, I	April 11, 1963?	CR V.109 p.6659	III
Colorado	Income Tax, Limit Other	April 25, 1963?	CR V.109 p.7060	III
Texas	Proportional Electoral College, I	May 22, 1963	CR V.109 p.11852-3	III
South Carolina	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	June 10, 1963?	CR V.109 p.10441	~~III~~ 2004
South Carolina	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	June 10, 1963?	CR V.109 p.10441-2	~~III~~ 2004
South Carolina	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	June 10, 1963? February 18, 1965?	CR V.109 p.10441 CR V.111 p.3304	~~III~~ 2004
Virginia	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	March 15, 1964? December 3, 1964	CR V.110 p.5659 CR V.108 p.880-1	III III
Massachusetts	School Management, Other	March 18, 1964	CR V.110 p.7616	III
Massachusetts	Senior Pensions	April 23, 1964	CR V.110 p.9875	III
North Carolina	Apportionment of Legislature, II	May 12, 1964	CR V.111 p.10673	~~III~~ 1969-Not Joint
Virginia	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	December 3, 1964	CR V.111 p.880	III
Louisiana	School Management, States' Right	January 6, 1965	CR V.111 p.165	~~III~~ 1990
Kansas	Apportionment of Legislature, II	January 27, 1965	CR V.111 p.3061-2	~~III~~ 1970
Arizona	Apportionment of Legislature, II	February 15, 1965?	CR V.111 p.3061	~~III~~ 2003
South Carolina	School Management, States' Right	February 18, 1965	CR V.111 p.3304	~~III~~ 2004
Tennessee	Apportionment of Legislature, II	February 23, 1965	CR V.112 p.200	~~III~~ 2010
Alabama	Apportionment of Legislature, II	February 25, 1965	CR V.112 p.200-1	III
Utah	Apportionment of Legislature, II	March 8, 1965	CR V.111 p.4320	~~III~~ 2001
Maryland	Apportionment of Legislature, II	March 25, 1965	CR V.111 p.5820	III
Oklahoma	Proportional Electoral College, I	May 12, 1965	CR V.111 p.11488	~~III~~ 2009
Minnesota	Apportionment of Legislature, II	May 12, 1965	CR V.111 p.10673	III
Louisiana	Apportionment of Legislature, II	June 1, 1965	CR V.111 p.12110	~~III~~ 1990
New Hampshire	Apportionment of Legislature, II	June 8, 1965	CR V.111 p.12853	~~III~~ 2010
Illinois	Revenue Sharing, Other	June 9, 1965	CR V.111 p.14144	III
Florida	Apportionment of Legislature, II	June 15, 1965	CR V.111 p.14163	~~III~~ 2010
Illinois	Apportionment of Legislature, II Apportionment of Legislature, Other	June 22, 1965 March 13, 1967	CR V.109 p.19379 CR V.113 p.8004	~~III~~ 1969-Not Joint III
Mississippi	Apportionment of Legislature, II	July 7, 1965?	CR V.111 p.15769	III
Mississippi	School Management, States' Right	July 7, 1965?	CR V.111 p.15769-70	III
Mississippi	Anti-Subversion	July 7, 1965?	CR V.111 p.15770	III
Ohio	Revenue Sharing, Other	July 29, 1965	CR V.109 p.25237	III
Nebraska	Proportional Electoral College, I	August 10, 1965	CR V.109 p.19775	III
Nebraska	Apportionment of Legislature, I	September 22, 1965	CR V.109 p.24723	III
Kentucky	Apportionment of Legislature, II	October 6, 1965?	CR V.111 p.26074	III
New Mexico	Apportionment of Legislature, II	January 14, 1966?	CR V.112 p.199	III
Indiana	Apportionment of Legislature, II	March 13, 1967?	CR V.113 p.6384	III
Alabama	Revenue Sharing, Other	April 5, 1967	CR V.113 p.10118-9	III
North Dakota	Apportionment of Legislature, Other	April 28, 1967	CR V.113 p.11175	~~III~~ 2001
Georgia	Revenue Sharing, Other	May 4, 1967	CR V.113 p.11743	~~III~~ 2004
Illinois	Revenue Sharing, Other	June 28, 1967	CR V.113 p.17634-5	~~III~~ 1969-Not Joint
Texas	Revenue Sharing, Other	June 28, 1967	CR V.113 p.17634	III
Iowa	Apportionment of Legislature, Other	April 13, 1969?	CR V.115 p.12249	III
Florida	Revenue Sharing, Other	September 3, 1969	CR V.115 p.24116	~~III~~ 2010
New Hampshire	Revenue Sharing, I	February 25, 1970	CR V.115 p.36154	~~III~~ 2010
Mississippi	School Management, Other School Management, No Assignment	March 5, 1970? March 2, 1973?	CR V.113 p.17634 CR V.119 p.8089	III IV
Louisiana	Anti-Subversion	June 22, 1970?	CR V.116 p.20673	~~III~~ 1990
Louisiana	Income Tax, Limit Other	July 7, 1970?	CR V.116 p.22906	~~III~~ 1990
Louisiana	Revenue Sharing, Other	July 10, 1970?	CR V.116 p.23765	~~III~~ 1990
New Jersey	Revenue Sharing, I	December 16, 1970?	CR V.116 p.41879	IV
West Virginia	Revenue Sharing, I	January 26, 1971?	CR V.117 p.541-2	IV
Delaware	Revenue Sharing, I	February 18, 1971?	CR V.117 p.3175	??
Massachusetts	Revenue Sharing, I	March 4, 1971	CR V.117 p.5020	IV
South Dakota	Revenue Sharing, I	March 8, 1971	CR V.117 p.5303	IV
North Dakota	Revenue Sharing, I	April 26, 1971?	CR V.117 p.11841	IV 2001
Oregon	Revenue Sharing, I	May 24, 1971?	CR V.117 p.16574	??
Louisiana	Revenue Sharing, I	June 15, 1971?	CR V.117 p.19801-2	IV 2000
Ohio	Revenue Sharing, I	June 28, 1971?	CR V.117 p.22280	IV
Massachusetts	School Management, Other School Management, Other	September 8, 1971? March 28, 1973	CR V.117 p.30905 CR V.119 p.12408-9	IV IV
Michigan	School Management, No Assignment	October 28, 1971	CR V.117 p.41598-9	IV
Iowa	Revenue Sharing, I	March 2, 1972?	CR V.118 p.6501-2	IV
Florida	Senate Control of Presiding Officer	April 4, 1972?	CR V.118 p.11444	IV 2010
Arizona	School Management, Prayer	April 4, 1972?	CR V.118 p.11445	~~III~~ 2003
Tennessee	School management, No Assignment	May 8, 1972?	CR V.118 p.16214	?? 2010
New York	School Management, Other	October 2, 1972?	CR V.118 p.33047-8	IV
Virginia	Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 23, 1973 March 10, 1975? March 29, 1976?	CR V.119 p.8091 CR V.121 p.5793 CR V.122 p.8335-6	IV III IV
Mississippi	Prayer in Public Buildings	March 20, 1973?	CR V.119 p.8689	IV
Virginia	School management, No Assignment	April 3, 1973?	CR V.119 p.10675	??
New Jersey	School Management, Other	April 9, 1973?	CR V.119 p.11446	??
Texas	School Management, No Assignment	April 10, 1973?	CR V.119 p.11515	IV
Oklahoma	School Management, No Assignment	April 25, 1973	CR V.119 p.14428	~~III~~ 2009
Maryland	School Management, Other	May 7, 1973?	CR V.119 p.14421	??
Nevada	School Management, No Assignment	May 29, 1973?	CR V.119 p.17022-3	IV
New Hampshire	School Management, Other	June 5, 1973?	CR V.119 p.18190	?? 2010
Arkansas	Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Emergency	March 10, 1975? March 8, 1979?	CR V.121 p.5793 CR V.125 p.4372	III IV
Mississippi	Balanced Budget, Other	April 29, 1975?	CR V.121 p.12175-6	III
Missouri	Right to Life, Various	May 5, 1975?	CR V.121 p.12867	III
Nevada	Limited Funding Mandates, Various	June 26, 1975?	CR V.121 p.21065	III
Louisiana	Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, General	July 28, 1975? February 8, 1979? July 19, 1979?	CR V.121 p.25312 CR V.125 p.2110-1 CR V.125 p.19470-1	~~III~~ 2000 IV 2000 V 1990
Kentucky	School Management, No Assignment	September 8, 1975?	CR V.121 p.27821	III
Alabama	Balanced Budget, Other	September 10, 1975?	CR V.121 p.28347	IV 1989
Georgia	Balanced Budget, General	February 6, 1976?	CR V.122 p.2740	IV 2004
Delaware	Balanced Budget, Other	February 25, 1976?	CR V.122 p.4329	IV
South Carolina	Balanced Budget, Emergency Balanced Budget, Other	February 25, 1976? February 8, 1979?	CR V.122 p.4329 CR V.125 p.2114	IV 2004 IV 2004
Massachusetts	School Management, No Assignment	April 7, 1976?	CR V.122 p.9735	III
Oklahoma	Limited Funding Mandates, Various	June 7, 1976?	CR V.122 p.16814	III
Louisiana	Right to Life, Various	July 22, 1976?	CR V.122 p.23550	IV 1990
Maryland	Balanced Budget, Emergency	January 28, 1977?	CR V.123 p.2545-6	IV
Texas	Balanced Budget, Emergency Balanced Budget, Other	March 15, 1977? February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.5224	IV
Virginia	Line Item Veto, Various	March 28, 1977?	CR V.123 p.9289	??
New Jersey	Right to Life, Various	April 5, 1977?	CR V.123 p.10481	IV
South Dakota	Right to Life, Unborn Right to Life, Sacred Life	April 18, 1977? April 18, 1980?	CR V.123 p.11048	IV 2010
Utah	Right to Life, Various	May 2, 1977?	CR V.123 p.13057-8	~~III~~ 2001
Arkansas	Right to Life, Various	May 20, 1977?	CR V.123 p.15808-9	IV
Rhode Island	Right to Life, Various	May 20, 1977?	CR V.123 p.15809	IV
Arizona	Balanced Budget, Emergency	June 14, 1977?	CR V.123 p.18873-4	~~III~~ 2003
Massachusetts	Right to Life, Various	June 23, 1977?	CR V.123 p.20659	??
Indiana	Right to Life, Various	July 22, 1977?	CR V.123 p.4797	??
Nebraska	Right to Life, Various	April 21, 1978	CR V.124 p.12215	IV
Pennsylvania	Right to Life, Various	April 25, 1978?	CR V.124 p.11438	IV
Tennessee	Judicial Term Limits	April 25, 1978?	CR V.124 p.11437	~~III~~ 2010
Tennessee	Balanced Budget, Other	April 25, 1978?	CR V.124 p.11438	~~III~~ 2010
Kansas	Balanced Budget, Emergency	May 19, 1978?	CR V.124 p.14584	IV
Delaware	Right to Life, Various	June 9, 1978?	CR V.124 p.17055	III
Colorado	Balanced Budget, General	February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2109	V
Oklahoma	Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2113	IV 2009
Oregon	Balanced Budget, General	February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2113	IV 2000
Nebraska	Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2112	IV
New Mexico	Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2112-3	IV
Pennsylvania	Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2113-4	IV
North Dakota	Balanced Budget, Other	February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2113	II 2001
Nevada	Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 8, 1979? January 29, 1980?	CR V.125 p.2112 CR V.126 p.1104-5	III V 1989-Not Joint
Florida	Balanced Budget, General Balanced Budget, Other	February 8, 1979? June 21, 1988?	CR V.125 p.2109-10 CR V.134 p.15363	IV 1988 VI 2010
North Carolina	Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 22, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2113-4	??
Mississippi	Right to Life, Various	February 26, 1979?	CR V.125 p.3196	IV
South Dakota	Balanced Budget, Emergency	March 1, 1979?	CR V.125 p.3656	V 2010
Idaho	Balanced Budget, Emergency	March 1, 1979?	CR V.125 p.3657	V 2000
Utah	Balanced Budget, Emergency	March 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.4372-3	V 2001
Georgia	Right to Life, Various	March 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.4372	IV 2004
Indiana	Balanced Budget, Emergency	May 1, 1979?	CR V.125 p.9188	IV
New Hampshire	Balanced Budget, General	May 16, 1979?	CR V.125 p.11584	IV 2010
Iowa	Balanced Budget, General	June 18, 1979?	CR V.125 p.15227	IV
Nevada	Right to Life, Various	June 25, 1979?	CR V.125 p.16350	V
Arizona	Limited Funding Mandates, Various	July 19, 1979?	CR V.126 p.11389	~~III~~ 2003
Idaho	Right to Life, Various	March 21, 1980?	CR V.126 p.6172	V 2000
Oklahoma	Right to Life, Various	April 24, 1980?	CR V.126 p.8972	IV 2009
Tennessee	Right to Life, Various	May 2, 1980?	CR V.126 p.9765	IV 2010
Alabama	Right to Life, Various	May 8, 1980?	CR V.126 p.10650	IV
North Dakota	Right to Life, Various	April 27, 1981?	CR V.127 p.10650	??
Alaska	Balanced Budget, General	February 3, 1982?	CR V.128 p.798	??
Missouri	Balanced Budget, General	July 21, 1983?	CR V.129 p.20352	V
Arizona	Line Item Veto, Various	June 5, 1984?	CR V.130 p.14956	~~III~~ 2003
South Dakota	Line Item Veto, Various	March 12, 1986?	CR V.132 p.4473	V 2010
Utah	Income Tax, Limit Other	March 30, 1987?	CR V.133 p.7299	IV 2001
South Dakota	Congressional Term Limits	April 4, 1989?	CR V.135 p.5396	IV 2010
Idaho	Income Tax, Limit Other	April 10, 1989?	CR V.135 p.5895	??
Georgia	Flag Desecration	April 16, 1991?	CR Vol. 137, pp. 8085-8086, POM-26 (Resolution No. 105)	IV 2004
Colorado	Limited Funded Mandates, Various	June 26, 1992?	CR Vol. 138, p. 16552, POM-428 (SJM 92-3)	V
South Dakota	Limited Funded Mandates, Various	March 22, 1993?	CR Vol. 139, p. 5905, POM-50 (SJR 3)	V 2010
Missouri	No Judicial Taxing Power	June 29, 1993?	CR Vol. 139, p. 14565, POM-175 (SCR 9)	V
Delaware	Income Tax, Limit Other	June 28, 1994?	CR Vol. 140, p. 14718, POM-554 (HCR 56)	IV
Missouri	Limited Funding Mandates, Various	June 29, 1994?	CR Vol. 140, p. 15072, POM-575 (SCR 21)	V
Arizona	No Judicial Taxing Power	March 27, 1996?	CR Vol. 142, pp. S3012-S3013, POM-523 (SCR 1014)	~~III~~ 2003
South Dakota	No Judicial Taxing Power	March 27, 1996?	CR Vol. 142, p. S3013, POM-526 (HCR 1010)	III
Nevada	Congressional Term Limits	June 29, 1996?	Nevada Constitution	III
North Dakota	No Judicial Taxing Power	April 6, 2001?	CR Vol. 147, p. S3705, POM-7 (HCR 3031)	III
Louisiana	Posse Comitatus	April 29, 2008?	CR Vol. 154, p. S3504, POM-329 (HCR 38)	IV
Nebraska	Balanced Budget (Reaffirmation of 1976 LR 106)	April 13, 2010	LR 538	V
Florida	Balanced Budget, Other	April 19, 2010	CR Vol. 160, pp. S5563-S5564, POM-323 (SCR 10)	V
North Dakota	Increase in federal debt to require approval by majority of state legislatures	April 11, 2011	CR Vol. 158, p. S1459, POM-66 (SCR 4007)	IV
North Dakota	Mode of Amendment, Other	April 14, 2011	HCR 3048	V
Alabama	Balanced Budget, Other	June 1, 2011	CR Vol. 160, pp. S3666-S3667, POM-251 (SJR 100)	V
Louisiana	Increase in federal debt to require approval by majority of state legislatures	June 21, 2011	CR Vol. 158, p. S2241, POM-69 (HCR 87)	IV
New Hampshire	Balanced Budget	May 16, 2012	HCR 40	V
Ohio	Balanced Budget	November 20, 2013	CR Vol. 160, p. S1174, POM-197 (SJR 5)	V
Georgia	Balanced Budget	February 20, 2014	CR Vol. 160, pp. S3667-S3668, POM-254 (SR 371)	V
Georgia	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials including members of Congress	March 6, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S4332, POM-285 (SR 736)	V
Michigan	Balanced Budget	March 26, 2014	SJR "V"	V
Tennessee	Balanced Budget	April 9, 2014	HJR 548	V
Alaska	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials including members of Congress	April 19, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S6021, POM-345 (HJR 22, also referred to as "Legislative Resolve No. 68")	V
Florida	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials including members of Congress	April 21, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S4332, POM-286 (SM 476)	V
Florida	Balanced Budget	April 21, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S4333, POM-288 (SM 658)	V
Florida	Legislation in Congress to contain only one subject and that one subject must be clearly expressed in the measure's title	April 23, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S4333, POM-289 (HM 261)	V
Vermont	Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission	May 2, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S4331, POM-284 ("Joint Senate Resolution" No. 27)	V
Louisiana	Balanced Budget	May 15, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S5563, POM-322 (HCR 70)	V
California	Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission	June 23, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S5507, POM-320 (AJR 1)	V
Illinois	Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission	December 3, 2014	SJR 42	V
South Dakota	Balanced Budget	February 17, 2015	HJR 1001	V
New Jersey	Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission	February 23, 2015	SCR 132	V
Utah	Balanced Budget	March 6, 2015	HJR 7	V
North Dakota	Balanced Budget	March 24, 2015	CR Vol. 161, pp. 2399-2400, POM-17 (HCR 3015)	V

The Birch Society and Eagle Forum folks have their hearts in the right place, but they don't know what they're talking about. I'll grant that there are a lot of unknowns because there has never been an Amendments Convention under the Constitution.

That IS what they are talking about. That's precisely the issue.

But the people behind the COS movement have done their homework.

No, they have not. The COS movement is dominated by the arrogance of Mike Farris and is simply a triumph of hope over experience. The COS movement has simply strung together a bunch of hopes and confuse their hopes with reality.

They know about the Dillon and Coleman decisions, and how Congress will try to take control of the process using them as a pretext. They also know that if Congress tried that, it would violate the original intent of the Framers when they wrote Article V

But isn't that the wole problem they are trying to solve? Congress IS violating the original intent of the Framers. That's the problem. So, yes, of course Congress would violate the original intent of the Framers. That's what Congress has been doing for close to 170 years. So what makes you think they are going to stop now?

We have never had a ‘runaway’ electoral college because electors are statutorily responsible to their states. For the very same reason there is no reason to fear a runaway amendments convention.

But delegates to an amendments convention are NOT statutorily responsible to their states nor responsible to the states in any other way. Indeed, there is no reason to expect that the delegates to an Article V convention will even come from the States. Under the language of Article V, Congress could call a convention of academics from Harvard Law School or from Members of Congress.

Attempts by Roman Buhler to FIRST pass laws in at least 14 States and amend the state constitutions to protect against unfaithful delegates or runaway amendments have been consistently REJECTED by the COS movement as unnecessary.

"Coleman v. Miller was a case that involved shenanigans in the Kansas Legislature.

Irrelevant.

In that 1939 decision, the Supreme Court made certain statements that were not relevant to the case itself. In the business of the law, the term for that is dictum; the plural is dicta. Anything that is dictum is not law, but simply an opinion of the judge who wrote the decision."

But those statements are the law, because they accurately describe what Article V of the US Constitution actually says.

So if the issue were raised again, the statements in Coleman v. Miller -- even if they are dicta -- would be consulted. A Court would then look at Article V and see "Yup, that's correct." That's because that is what Article V of the US Constitution actually says.

To use the argument that a statement is dicta, you have to have something else to hang your hat on. The COS movement has absolutely nothing but empty hope to base its beliefs on.

Article V is explicit. The States apply. CONGRESS calls the convention. So Congress controls how the convention is set up. There is no other possibility.

I run across this opinion a lot at this site, and it is only logical for me to assume that you believe the American people are no longer capable of self-government. If that is so, I see only three possible solutions, and they only open up more questions.

How about a 4th option? Education?

Our country is in the state it is in because we stopped believing in America and teaching and preserving self-government.

The reason the USA is no longer capable of self-government is because we stopped teaching and maintaining the ideals of our country's founding.

The only solution is to correct that mistake.

Others have said that Congress has a limited administrative-only role in an Article V proposing convention process. You make it sound as if Congress has supreme authority over the process. Article V says that Congress' only role is to call the convention when enough states apply, and to select the method of state ratification of proposed amendments. Everything else in between, is for the convention itself to decide.

Says who? Here is the acid test: What happens when it is NOT done that way? To whom will you go to complain? What will you do to sop it? Who will enforce the vain and empty hopes you cling to?

If the DC insiders don't obey the clear words of the Constitution now, what makes you think they will follow your empty wishes that are not written down anywhere?

Delegates will serve their states.

How do you know that the delegates to an Article V convention will represent the states? Or be chosen by the states? Or be apportioned among the states?

The only thing that Article V says is that the states APPLY for a convention, and then CONGRESS calls the convention.

Nowhere does the Constitution say that the States have to be represented AT ALL in the convention.

Where does the Constitution say that?

Congress could call a convention made up of law school academics to rewrite the US Constitution. Show me where the Constitution says otherwise.

In post #144 I provided a link to the Indiana statute regarding its delegation to an amendments convention. Delegates will do the will of their legislatures.

How do you know a convention for amending the constitution under Article V will be made up of representatives from the States? Where does it say that in the US Constitution?

What if there isn't any delegation from Indiana or any other State? What if Congress appoints a group of Members of Congress and a couple US Supreme Court Judges to rewrite the US Constitution?

Because the states will ignore them and hold their convention anyway. Or their first order of business will be to set aside Congressional restraints and vote in their own rules.

Congress only has the power to call the Convention and specify the method of ratification.

Everything else not written down falls to the states themselves to decide via the 10th amendment.

-PJ

I'm a bit unsure as to what you mean. Once the convention meets, the subject matter for each delegation is limited by their state statute.

But the COS movement REJECTS those safeguards as being unnecessary. I interviewed Roman Buhler almost 2 years ago on these proposals. The COS movement has voted DOWN those safeguards repeatedly.

It is also possible that Soros can have his agents work an amendment proposal to announcement but it will need 34 states to deem it as an amendment and 38 states to approve/ratify it as part of the Constitution.

And the mainstream media will work over time manipulating low information voters and putting pressure on the state legislators, won't they? Anyone who stands in the way of the "Warm Puppies and Rainbow Amendment of 2017" will be crucified in the news media and targeted for defeat in the next election.

You really can't foresee that? What do you think the news media will be doing? What do you think all the interest groups will be doing?