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

1/23/14 | johnwk

[JOHN W K]

SEE: Reflections on the Mt. Vernon Assembly

By Michael Farris

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

JWK



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

[PotatoChop]

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

Keep you powder dry my fellow American!

[JOHN W K]

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

JWK

[JRandomFreeper]

That's not an Article 5 convention.

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

/johnny

[Political Junkie Too]

Yeah, that's what I saw, too.

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

-PJ

[narses]

The loons are out tonight!

[Political Junkie Too]

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

-PJ

[drypowder]

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

[JOHN W K]

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

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

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

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

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

JWK

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

[G Larry]

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

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

[Art in Idaho]

I've researched both sides of this debate and have come down on the side of pushing ahead full bore with the Article V Convention of States.

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

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

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

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

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

[Jacquerie]

There is absolutely nothing to lose from an Article V amendment convention.

Governments fall into one of two categories. They either govern by consent, or rule by force. Only the brittle shell of our corrupted constitution remains.

I have just about talked myself out of voting in national elections. Why condone our growing police state?

We must make the attempt to save our republic. It may be too late, but there is no excuse to not push for an Article V state amendment convention.

[Jacquerie]

The confederation congress had no authority over the states. It could suggest anything, but enforce nothing.

The confederation had served its purpose. Once the revolutionary war was won, the confederation began to dissolve. How? The states simply stopped showing up in congress. The states had obeyed the Articles when it suited their individual purposes. Paying taxes so that our war debts could be paid was not one of them.

BTW, the Articles were ratified by the state legislatures and as such, the Articles were not regarded as a higher authority. The states viewed them as they would any law, and regularly passed laws that contravened the Articles.

The Framers requested the constitution be ratified by higher authority, the people.

The Framers could not and did not impose anything. Congress did not have to forward the constitution to the states. The states did not have to arrange elections for ratifying convention delegates, and the delegates did not have to ratify.

At any point, the congress or states or the people's reps could have rejected the constitution. They didn't, and that was a good thing.

[Jacquerie]

Another important question is, how many delegates does each state get to send to the convention?

That will be addressed in the pre-planning meetings. The next one will likely be this coming June. The states are empowered, and not the people, to call a convention. That means in such a FEDERAL convention, the states will each have an equal number of votes. CA is entitled to no more votes than DE, and the courts have no jurisdiction.

The progressive agenda is just about complete. Our republic, once dedicated to personal freedom has morphed into a police state. There is nothing to lose.

A convention cannot be controlled? Not by our oppressors in DC, that is certain.

[Jacquerie]

Here is a “big picture” point that I think illustrates how the process in DC cannot be reformed from within DC.

From 1789 to 1913 America was a federal republic.

Due to the 17th Amendment, from 1913 to say, the 1970s, America was a democratic republic. By that I mean the limitations of enumerated power were replaced by majoritarianism.

Since the 1970s we evolved into a modern police state where even democratic majorities do not rule. For example, Obamacare NEVER polled majority support. Over half of the states in their corporate capacity opposed Obamacare in court. So why does Obamacare exist?

In the modern American police state, Obama’s administrative bureaucrats churn out the laws we live under. As Fast & Furious, IRS abuse, etc. show, the bureaucrats are largely unknown and certainly untouchable.

So, not only are enumerated powers ignored, not only do the majority not get their way, a uniparty cadre of a few men and women oversee unelected commissars who determine how we will be born, live, work, and die.

THERE IS NOTHING TO LOSE THROUGH AN ARTICLE V AMENDMENT CONVENTION.

[JOHN W K]

I researched this issue very carefully back in 1985 and cannot see any safe way to convene a convention without providing the opportunity to our corrupted state legislatures and our despotic federal government to rewrite our Constitution and undo the miracle our Founders left us.

Who would be in charge of deciding the constitutionality of the doings of the convention? Would it not be our very own despotic Supreme Court?

And who do you think will attend a convention should one be called? Would it not be the very snakes who now cause our sufferings? Could Madison be right, and that every snake on earth including ACORN, would seize the opportunity and find their way into the convention to advance interests not in the general welfare of the United States? Let us take a look at what has already happened in New Hampshire in 1984 when a convention was called to amend its state constitution.

During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention to alter its State Constitution, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and there were two legislative lobbyists….the very people who are now causing our misery! Do you have confidence in these sorts of people who would most certainly find their way into the convention?

The suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a pubic office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”



I wonder what Mark Levin would say regarding the selection process of those who will attend an Article V convention. And how many delegates does each state get to send to the convention? Will it be by a rule of apportionment in which our “progressive” states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention because of their large population size? And if they do, could they not steamroll their progressive agenda through the convention and force it upon the entire United States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed for ratification or a mere nine states as was done to make our existing Constitution effective? Keep in mind the convention of 1787 violated the Articles of Confederation's rule requiring a unanimous consent to be obtained to alter it!

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

Finally, it seems to be continually asserted by those calling for a convention that there is no way to restore our Constitution’s original provisions without calling an Article V convention. But that assertion is factually incorrect! The truth is undoing what our despotic federal government has done to us merely requires the people to rise up and demand such change! See our Constitution’s 21st Amendment! And then study how the people took it upon themselves to get the 18th Amendment repealed. The following photos tell the tail! CLICK HERE

The future of our country is in the hands of the American people, but they must rise to the occasion, and take back their country from their corrupted state legislatures and our despotic federal government. And that process could begin this coming election by asking those running for office if they will support the following House/Senate Joint Resolution:

House/Senate Joint Resolution

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.

Is our existing and corrupted socialist/progressive tax system not the source of power used to enslave America's productive people and rob them of the wealth they have created? Would ending this horrid system of taxation and restoring our Constitution's original tax plan not be a major step in taking back our country?



I believe this would give America’s working people and business owners something to unite under and then work to elect members to Congress this coming election who will make the adoption of this proposal part of their campaign.


JWK




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

[John Valentine]

Put bluntly, that’s horsepucky. That’s not on the agenda of what we’re doing. Perhaps you were confused before, but now youv’e beed told. No more of this stuff from you, OK? It’s embarrassing to the forum.

Any attempt to confuse present efforts to convene an Article V conventios with this kind of crap is dishonest and probably purposefully so. My guess is that you work for obamites and were sent here to sow confusion.

[JOHN W K]

You are not attempting to convene a convention under Article V?

Instead of the insulting remarks, how about addressing some of the unanswered questions regarding the calling of a convention under Article V? The very future of our country hangs in the balance and I can’t see any safe way to convene a convention without providing to our corrupted state legislatures and our despotic federal government the opportunity to rewrite our Constitution and undo the miracle our Founders left us.

JWK

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

[drypowder]

I agree and share the same concern that convening an article V convention under the current corrupt political environment could and likely would bode badly for our future and our liberty. I also agree with your suggestion about curbing the personal insults, it distracts from the primary importance of the subject as a whole and essentially exposes the lack of the name caller's ability to grasp the reality of the corruption now controlling the political system in this country. Maybe I'm wrong but I believe those controlling our government will not abide by any law that is meant to diminish their strangle hold on this nation. If America is ever to be restored to a Constitutional Republic, it will require a citizenry willing to sacrifice and do what ever it takes to rid ourselves of the evil that has overtaken us.

[JOHN W K]

I agree with you regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited system of government. Sometimes I actually think there are paid posters who visit these forums and do everything possible to prevent a productive discussion. Over at Hannity’s forum I started a similar thread and the first two pages were nothing but insults and complaining about the length of my post. It only ended when a moderator stepped in and warned those posters to end their trolling.

Aside from that I cannot imagine our corrupted state legislatures and our despotic federal government getting together and convening a convention with the idea of loosening the iron fist they now have around the necks of America people. I believe their only aim would be is to make constitutional the tyranny they now rain down upon the people. And perhaps their ultimate aim is to adopt the following Constitution for the Newstates of America

JWK

[Art in Idaho]

Aside from that I cannot imagine our corrupted state legislatures and our despotic federal government getting together and convening a convention with the idea of loosening the iron fist they now have around the necks of America people.

A appreciate you assessment and concerns. I too have similar concerns but am hoping, after the 2014 elections, we may have 38 states with republican majorities that would follow through with the Liberty Amendments. I know state legislatures have their faults, but if they can't rally around the Liberty Amendments and stay the course, what other options do we really have? The current Congress certainly isn't going to propose their demise. In a quandary I am as I feel even if we are successful in November, the federal Juggernaut will continue unabated.