Publius Huldah vs. Article V: Part IV

Subtitle: Conspiracy Everywhere. Publius Huldah, “If we have a convention now, George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton won ‘t be there to protect you.” (Timeline: 24:00-30:20. View her speech.)

Rodney Dodsworth Response. These leading soldiers, patriots, statesmen and others of equal caliber led the Continental Army, and served in the Confederation Congress and state governments. Yet, such men, the best of their times, were unable to keep, as per Article II of the Articles of Confederation (AC), “security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare.”

Publius Huldah: “You won’t find out who the delegates will be, and you won’t find out before it’s too late.” In another shocker, she says, “They will have a power to impose a third constitution.” There will be a new mode of ratification for the third Constitution. The consent of all the states was necessary to amend the AC. Only nine, determined by the federal convention were needed to implement Constitution. Since the 1787 convention specified the number of states necessary to implement the new plan, so can an Article V convention. A new mode of ratification can be established for the third constitution, already prepared, and waiting for the convention! This third constitution, The Constitution of the New States of America is to be ratified by a national referendum called by the President. States are dissolved. It sets up a totalitarian dictatorship and everyone will be disarmed. The New States will answer to the new national government.

Why couldn’t the 1A or the 2A or the 4A or the 5A be repealed via a constitutional amendment if everything becomes fair game during an Article V?

The problem has been that everything has continually been “fair game” during any session of SCOTUS. The difference in an Article V convention is that the convention is not beholden to Congress or SCOTUS. Thus, congressional term limits become thinkable. And the institution of direct critique by the states of (at least the precedential value of) any SCOTUS decision could be given effect.

I think the wiser course of action is to keep proposing and passing individual amendments to get where we want to go. The risk appears to be too great to throw it open to any and all amendments in an Article V given how moronic the majority of Americans obviously are.

The Article V convention is, granted, an addition to the ways the Constitution might be changed. But at least a mere one-fourth of the states (i.e., only thirteen states) ~~retain the veto power over~~^{would by default veto} any amendments the convention proposed. I grant that the convention, if convened, would propose amendments. After all, what is the point of being in a convention to propose amendments and then not proposing any??
But the default is that they will not be ratified. It takes action by the states to approve any of them.
. . . and that thought will motivate the convention to come up with good proposals.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.