Posted on 12/05/2016 2:21:39 AM PST by Jacquerie
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
Article V ping!
It reads like something George Orwell would have written....
I don’t think any honest “expert” can say for sure that a ConCon won’t devolve into something disastrous. Once one is called, how could it possibly be limited in scope? If a proponent can provably guarantee to all the skeptics that there’s absolutely, positively no way that such a disaster can happen, great! Otherwise it’s simply not worth the risk. Don’t forget that the American people are so addled that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a wide margin.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
We have lost the basic fundamental idea behind the constitution. Not separation of powers alone as is taught today even in conservative circles, but that idea is the genuine representation of the people in the house of representatives. Our laws should be voted on by 4,000 representatives not 435!
As I read all of Publius Huldah’s statements I recognize a voice of a sensationalist stirring up disinformation and trouble. I’ve only been studying an Article V convention for 4 weeks now and her false statements are blatant!
One has only to read Article V to first realize that it discusses amendments ONLY to the Constitution. Where she gets this idea of creating a new constitution is her vindictive point of troublemaking.
We already have 26 amendments to the Constitution. Congress gets its own power to amend the Constitution from Article V. Why would the ratification of those amendments be any different from amendments proposed by the states? (Rhetorical) It is sad to me that many seem to have been mislead into a political cult-like environment by this individual.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Like much of the Constitution, Article V is about the rights of the states. The Senate was about the rights of the states until the 17th Amendment made it about the rights of the people within the states. Really, like the House, about the Federal Government itself.The problem we have is that SCOTUS most famously over time, and the current administration, have disregarded the Constitution with impunity. They have been able to do so because, “the media.” Article V convention is a constitutional means of cutting self-serving Congress out of the loop. That’s all. Whether such a convention would limit itself to such matters or not, term limits and anything else which may be beneficial to society but uncongenial to Congress are the things by which such a convention could benefit society.
SCOTUS has arrogated to itself the sole final say as to the meaning of the Constitution. The states should institute a mechanism outside of Congress whereby they may limit mischief entailed by judicial activism. Communications being what they now are, there should be a way for the states to evaluate SCOTUS rulings and invalidate their presidential value when necessary. When a Rov v. Wade decision comes down, the states should be able to say, “The next time SCOTUS rules on this matter will be the first time it rules on this matter.” Perhaps by referendums within the states on the matter.
What you are referring to as a con-con is some kind of myth created by this sensationalist weirdo.
All amendments to the Constitution are effected by Article V. There is no other way to amend our U.S. Constitution. Congress has amended the Constitution 26 times using this process.
The states are also given the power to amend the constitution under Article V. It is the same process. There is no voodoo involved that is any different from congressional power to amend the Constitution. It's all one Section. The powers are not different.
Furthermore, Article V is about one thing. Amendments. Nothing more. No dissolution of the whole Constitution and no writing a new constitution. Just amending the Constitution.
There are multiple comments on other threads under the Convention of States heading which list the amendments Freepers would like to have implemented.
Please tell me this is sarcasm.
I agree completely that the SCOTUS is out of control. Same with the Executive for that matter. But there’s nothing I’ve seen that would limit the amendments that could be considered under an Article V convention.
Amendments can have disastrous results. The rights that the Constitution or an amendment gives, a subsequent amendment can take away, and vice versa. Prohibition came about via a constitutional amendment. Prohibition was repealed via a constitutional amendment. 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?
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 states are also given the power to amend the constitution under Article V. It is the same process. There is no voodoo involved that is any different from congressional power to amend the Constitution. It's all one Section. The powers are not different. Furthermore, Article V is about one thing. Amendments. Nothing more. No dissolution of the whole Constitution and no writing a new constitution. Just amending the Constitution.
Well said. Good Luck in Austin and let us know how it turns out.
Isn't the scope naturally limited by Article V to only allow proposals for amendments to the existing Constitution?
-PJ
"There are 99 houses in 50 state legislatures. Any leftist amendment would require only 13 of these legislative bodies from 99 to defeat ratification. In other words, three quarters of the state legislatures must ratify or 38 states. If 13 legislatures fail to ratify the amendment is defeated. Since ratification by legislatures requires both houses to consent, only 13/99 are required. That is very close to 13%."
"The problem will not be to stop left-wing amendments but to pass prudent conservative amendments which restore the Constitution by invoking the Constitution."
"If the Congress of the United States elects to have the ratification procedures conducted by conventions rather than legislatures, the method of selecting the delegates to those conventions would be chosen by the legislatures. If only 13 legislative bodies out of 99 object to the method chosen by the other body because it is considered to favor a leftist amendment, there is no ratification forthcoming from that state."
"By either procedure the odds of a liberal amendment getting past so many conservative legislative bodies in so many states is both arithmetically and practically remote."
"Finally, this is only the last line of defense, there are innumerable steps along the way which make a "runaway convention" virtually impossible and render the need for the states to fail to ratify very likely superfluous."
In Part III, I addressed why Article V is necessary to avoid a general convention.
Agree.
The only reason I’ve spent so much time on her comments is that many Article V opponents at FR hang on her every word.
She is real and has a wide audience.
Her point is that like the 1787 convention, a modern Article V convention will change the rule of ratification.
If that were to happen, said electors would be yanked back to the states and fined, per the Indiana statute example.
Just. Wow.
Folks. If there's one thing we, as FReepers, should be diligent about it is the study of our Republic. We should never take someone at their word because they seem to be an expert. We question. We read. We research, dig and study.
Any of you, my FRiends, who are listening to the statements of Publius Huldah, please do your own research.
She says, since voting will be by secret ballot, the states will not know who to prosecute.
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.