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

Convention of States Project, Frequently Asked Questions No. 2

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

What is a Convention of States?

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

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

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

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

JWK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JWK

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

What would our founders do?

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

A suggested solution

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

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

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

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

Keep in mind we were warned against submitting to tyranny!

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

Is it not time to resist tyranny?

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.