Posted on 10/06/2014 12:35:51 PM PDT by Whenifhow
This speech was presented to Campaign For Liberty – Memphis on March 24, 2014. It exposes some of the false claims made by those pushing for the so-called “convention of states”. 1
https://vimeo.com/107933176
Below are hyperlinks to the exhibits referred to in the speech. Additional resources are also included.
The one page Chart which illustrates our Declaration, Constitution, and federal system is HERE.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report 2 cited in the speech was dated March 7, 2014. CRS’s revised Report, dated April 11, 2014, is HERE. The Report exposes as false the assurances that the States would be in control of a convention. The Report says:
“First, Article V delegates important and exclusive authority over the amendment process to Congress…” (page 4)
“Second . . . Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including . . . (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates; (5) setting internal convention procedures, including formulae for allocation of votes among the states; . . .” (page 4) 3
“. . . [In previous bills filed in Congress] [a]pportionment of convention delegates among the states was generally set at the formula provided for the electoral college, with each state assigned a number equal to its combined Senate and House delegations. Some bills included the District of Columbia, assigning it three delegates, but others did not include the federal district. . .” (page 37; see also page 41)
“. . . A related question concerns vote allocation in an Article V Convention. Would delegates vote per capita, or would each state cast a single vote, during the convention’s deliberations, and on the final question of proposing amendments?. . .” [then follows a discussion of different views on this undecided issue] (page 41)
“Article V itself is silent on membership in an Article V Convention, so it is arguable that Congress, in summoning a convention to consider amendments, might choose to include the District of Columbia and U.S. territories as either full members at a convention, or possibly as observers. As noted previously, some versions of the Article V Convention procedures bills introduced in the late 20th century did provide for delegates representing the District of Columbia, although not for U.S. territories . . .” (page 42)
Page 40 of the Report shows there doesn’t seem to be any:
“. . . constitutional prohibition against [U.S.] Senators and Representatives serving as delegates to an Article V Convention. . . ”
So! As the CRS Report states on page 27:
“In the final analysis, the question what sort of convention?” is not likely to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and a convention assembles.”
Do you see? But by then, it will be too late to stop it. HERE is former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger’s letter confirming this. 4
The text of the “parental rights” amendment is HERE. For a discussion showing how Michael Farris’ proposed amendment delegates power over children to the federal and State governments, go HERE and HERE.
To see how six of Mark Levin’s so-called “liberty amendments” do the opposite of what he claims, go HERE.
To see – on one page – proof of the original intents of the “interstate commerce”, “general welfare”, and “necessary and proper” clauses, go HERE.
The proponents of a convention portray the States as victims of federal tyranny. But the Truth is that the States voluntarily surrendered their retained powers, and the natural rights of The People, TO the federal government. And they did it for federal funds. Today, States get from 20% (Alaska) to 45.3% (Mississippi) of their State budgets from the federal government. State governments don’t want to rein in the feds! The people who run your State will do anything to keep their federal funds. HERE is the Pew Report.
Our Framers – those who actually signed the Constitution – NEVER said the purpose of amendments is to rein in the feds if they usurp powers. What they actually said is:
the novelty & difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision (Mr. Gerry at the federal convention on June 5, 1787); amendments remedy defects in the Constitution (Hamilton at the federal convention on Sep. 10, 1787); useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers” (Federalist No. 85, 13th para); and “amendment of errors” & “useful alterations” would be suggested by experience (Federalist No. 43 at 8.) HERE are the Articles of Confederation. Note that Art. XIII required approval of amendments by every State.
HERE is the Resolution, made by the Continental Congress on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74), to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia:
“…for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.
HERE is James Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville. Copy it to word processing, make paragraph breaks, & highlight it. Madison NEVER supported the convention method of amending our Constitution.
HERE is Joe Wolverton’s article about the Socialists’ involvement in the push for a convention.
HERE is the Constitution for the Newstates of America. Article XII addresses ratification by a referendum called by the President. Read HERE about the proposed Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America. Read them and see what is being planned for you.
HERE is the screen shot of Jordan Sillars’ comment approving the re-writing of our Constitution.
For Q’s & A’s on this issue, go HERE.
Endnotes:
1 There is no such thing as a “convention of states” to propose amendments. The term is a marketing gimmick used by proponents of an Article V convention to manipulate people into believing that the States would control an Article V convention – from start to finish.
Article V, US Constitution, provides two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution:
Congress proposes amendments and submits them to the States for ratification [the method we used for our existing 27 Amendments]; or Congress calls a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments [for good reason, we have never used this method]. 2 Even though we have never had an Article V convention; Congress has examined procedures for “calling” a convention so as to be ready if the need arises. The CRS Report proves that Congress has historically viewed its powers respecting “calling” a convention as exclusive and extensive. I thank Robert Brown for bringing the CRS Report to my attention.
3 The position Congress has historically taken in this regard is totally consistent with Article I, Sec. 8, last clause, which delegates to Congress power to make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out the power vested in Congress at Art. V to “call” the convention.
4 Folks! For the sake of your Posterity, you must understand this: After a convention is convened, the delegates can do whatever they want – including coming up with an entirely new Constitution with its own new method of ratification. Chief Justice Burger wrote in his June 22, 1988 letter to Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly:
“… 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 its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose. . .”
The federal convention of 1787, which was called by the Continental Congress “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”, should serve as a warning: The delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress [and from their States]; ignored Art. XIII of the Articles of Confederation which required the States to obey Congress on matters covered by the Articles, and wrote an entirely NEW Constitution with a NEW method of ratification which required only 9 of the 13 States for ratification. PH
“… 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 its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose. . .”
Ping.
Funny......
I thought an Article V convention fo the states to PROPOSE AMENDMENTS to the Consitiution is the same process that the congress followed to PROPOSE amendments 11th-27th only that the state legislatureas are doing vs. the power mad crazies in DC...
The Amendments STILL HAVE TO BE RATIFIED by 4/5 of the States in order to take effect....
Basically instead of having to pass through conregess with a 2/3rds vot it has to pass through 2/3rd of the STATE Legislatures...
IT IS NOT A ILLEGAL CON-CON...
Article V is in the constitution, that is why it is PART OF THE EXISTING ARTICLE V PROCESS.
The purpose of posting the article was simply for review and discussion.
Mark Levin has always admitted that his proposals are a desperate effort to avert a civil war.
They are also a desperate effort to avoid facing the issue of an illegal alien Muslim terrorist in the White House.
It’s too late for an Article V Convention. It’s simply a dead issue. “Obama” has put in motion the final stage of his plan to kill at least 90% of the American People—including the American blacks that he and his Muslim masters and the American Left consider vermin.
E X A C T L Y.
Let me quote the John Birch Society here:
“So, that’s the scam. In order to gain the necessary widespread support from both voters and state legislators for their inherently risky attempt to solve the problem of an out-of-control (unconstitutional) government by means of an Article V convention, the Article V convention advocates need to fool huge numbers of people into believing that the provision for Article V conventions was included in the Constitution only for making limited changes.”
The Constitutional Convention was originally called “just to fix the Articles of Confederation”.
Wanna destroy America? Call an Article V Convention. Why do you think even CA has asked for one. Libs are salivating over this one. You can’t call a Convention on a single issue. Once you call one, it is a street fight and the Libs have the upper hand. If you don’t think so then I have a bridge to sell you.
Article V ping.
More fear mongering. The libs and Birchers must really be getting worried.
Okay, I was facepalming my way through reading it, which is why I made so many spelling errors in my response, I was in a “You have got to be **** kidding me” mode of destroying my keyborad by presing the keys of my keyboard through my desk...
Sounds like your typical hype piece from the “Birtchers” that OMG they could propose an entirely new consititution...
Technically if this were true so could congress, ie the senate and the house!!!!! And it would ONLY be valid if and only if 4/5 of the states agreed to it.
Secnario: Suppose that the Senate and House members were all taken over by alien parasites that controled them like puppets. They could propose a new amendment that would Strike all amendments 1 through 27 from the consitution into oblivion....
However....
If 1/4 of the states (legislatures) and one additional state (legislature) say “No Way Jack” the alien plans will be thwarted... as it takes 3/4 of the state legislatures in order to RATIFY the amendment ie. Make it go into effect....
End Scenario
So you have a process which has TWO paths to PROPOSE an amendment. One is Passing of it through the Federal Legislature (federal Senate and federal House) and the other is it passing through 2/3rds of the STATE Legislatures (state hosue and state senate - except nebraska, they are weird).
Both steps still have the SAME ratification step in front of them after they pass the first hurdle...
Incredible. it’s a WHOLE lot of Conservatives too. I have no idea on what planet you think we hold a majority. We will get steamrolled in an Article V convention. While nothing may ever get passed in any event, we will be overrun.
Anything can be brought up in an Article V Convention. Studied this very issue in law school and have discussed it, ad nauseum, over the years.
Just labeling something “fear mongering” doesn’t change facts.
But, in the end, this is just an academic exercise as one will never, ever happen. ; )
If the dems were to take over 2/3 of the house and senate nothign coulod stop them proposing any odd number of Consitutional Amendments, However the states could easily stop them as they would never have the numbers needed to actually ratify them.
I don't think it's necessarily the case; there are some good ideas that even voters with a liberal bent could agree on (e.g. something limiting or abolishing the NSA and their domestic espionage, or considering the heavy tax burden and high unemployment, some sort of limiting factor on [personal income] taxes [i.e. flat rate, w/ maximum rate]).
In the end the only remedy may be a few states seceding. That of course will probably be an armed conflict.
Of course anything can be proposed. It still has to be ratified you idiot.
If 3/4 of the states ratify a crap sandwich then we deserve a crap sandwich!
Here is the way I see it amd the “exit ramps” for avoiding going off the cliff.
1. Elect More Republicans - Failed due to RINO/Uni-party confluence
2. Article V CoS to propose Amendments - Needed to try to take power from the federal government back to the states and reel in the the federal monster.
3. State Nullification - Last ditch effort to try to take power back fromthe federal monster, though by this point it may be too late...
4. State Secession - Could either end up peacilbly like the breakup of the chezloslovakia in the 90’s or a brutal civil war like the first one....
The longer we wait on #2. the more likely #3 then #4 become....
“After a convention is convened, the delegates can do whatever they want – “
Complete and utter falsehood.
The fact is that we ARE in a post constitutional America. Every day a new ConCon occurs in DC and more liberty is stolen. The Framers gave the states an emergency rip cord to pull and it is now time to pull that rip cord.
Shhhh, quite stating facts! It drives the JBS folks crazy..mmm, crazier!
And what is the JBS’s proposed solution to the post-constitutional age we find ourselves living in?
“Vote for more conservative candidats!”
Yep, that’s been working out pretty good for the last 30 years.....Keep at it JBS, maybe some day they’ll realize that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity....But, likely they won’t realize it until blood is being shed.
In the end the only remedy may be a few states seceding. That of course will probably be an armed conflict.
We could propose an amendment that allows for a state to peacibly leave the union via a set of procedures that a state must follow in order to leave.
You know like how to handle the federal tax transition, the creation of a “nation state” using the state government inferastructure, how millitary assets are handled, how federal land within the borders if the state are handed back to the state, etc etc ....
One could draft a process for a state leaving that is completely reasonable and that wouldn’t lead to war that could be put as an amendment for future use in case a state really wants to leave the union.
One could argue that if the south had an actuall process they had to follow that the civil war could have very well been avoided. Because putting the letter of the law creates a border that prevents an “anything goes aproach” to state secession.
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.