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
Not to be a kill joy but who do you think will vote yes for that amendment/law and what president will sign it?
No, if/when it gets worse and a state wants to leave it will have to fight for the exit.
Your Scare Tactics will not work.
Only 12 Red States are needed to stop a ‘Runaway Convention’. Conservatives control more than 30 states and many more after this next election.
It is the Left that trembles at the thought of an Article V process. And they should! LET THEIR NIGHTS BE SLEEPLESS!!!
[ Shhhh, quite stating facts! It drives the JBS folks crazy..mmm, crazier! ]
I wonder what is going to happen once people on the left start PACs to oppose the Article V CoS under cover of the JBS like groups (claiming to be Bi-Partisan) that are fully and wholly funded by Soros Type Front groups....
[ Not to be a kill joy but who do you think will vote yes for that amendment/law and what president will sign it?
No, if/when it gets worse and a state wants to leave it will have to fight for the exit. ]
Presidents do not sign amendments.....
Civics FAIL
I personally will not support anything like secession without an Article V convention being attempted first.
You exhaust every path short of national disintegration, or else those people never cared to save the nation in the first place.
The colonists did this until they were singled out to be hanged by the crown.
The south did not do this.
Yes I am fully aware of that my concrete FRiend. Notice I said “amendment/law”. Either way it is a failed attempt.
Civics: A+ average in all classes taken.
It still amazes me to see so many people unaware of the Amendment process.
[ I personally will not support anything like secession without an Article V convention being attempted first.
You exhaust every path short of national disintegration, or else those people never cared to save the nation in the first place.
The colonists did this until they were singled out to be hanged by the crown.
The south did not do this. ]
Agree 10000%
Article V CoS is one of the last exit ramps we have to turn the bus around until it goes scooting off the cliff....
Some of the other exit ramps we have already passed or we have to veer so hard to get to them that we may end up rolling the bus...
State Nullfication is one of those exits that is not paved and full of gravel....
I am fine with state Nullification but only AFTER Article V CoS is tried and IF it fails...
You’re no lawyer.
You’re a troll.
We’re talking about an Amendment Process here, not about how a Bill becomes law.
Your Civics is still a FAIL.
Product of the publik schools. Not having been in college for over 30 years I wonder what they teach in university level classes that most freshman/sophomores supposedly take?
I challenge you to find 1 out 10 people who can name their reps, and state critters.
Our Constitution is not broken. It is the criminals in DC that are the problem that have corrupted our Constitution by attaching illegal laws and handing the power of Congress over to the fraud in the WH. As long as the people in this country have the right to own and possess fire arms, the people can fix the political criminal issue, if and when they choose to do so. The DC criminals obviously know this so it has become somewhat of a surreptitious race to disarm the people before the people act on the fact that this government has morphed into the enemy of freedom, liberty and justice.
The John Birch Society maintains that the original Constitutional Convention was unauthorized and out of control, thus illegitimate and illegal - making our current Constitution illegitimate and illegal.
Do you agree?
Whatever. I have not the energy to prove my civic savvy and get into a pissin’ match over how a constitutional convention is formed. Go nit pick someone else.
Point being - amendment, law, executive order, joint resolution, letter from your mommy, or happy wishes, it won’t happen.
Now you are attempting to distract.
One thing is clear; you are nothing like what you call yourself here.
JSB folks couldn't care about facts, they don't seem to get too upset hearing them...
In my observations of the JBS'ers on Article V, their modus operandi is to spout falsehoods and whatnot to see who they can reel-in (more members, donations, etc). Then, sanity eventually prevails, the falsehoods answered. The JBS'ers back off, and dissappear. A few months pass, and then, repeat: Starts a new thread, attracting new folks who had not heard of Art V or the JBS, Art V folks come with the facts and sanity, and the cycle repeats.
So, do you propose that we resort to violence before we have exhausted all other peaceful avenues (such as an Article V convention)?
In my Civics class we learned that any effort to make a bill become law or to create a new amendment would involve kickbacks and hookers. I see nowhere in the above discussion where either have been mentioned.
You all need to go back and bone up on the political process.
The problem with resorting to violence before exhausting peaceful approaches is that the violent approach will not have enough followers to get anywhere. The saner folks will still await Art V, nullification, and so on.
For any violence-now proponents, you’ll have to have more patience. Your day may come (but I hope not).
FWIW, IMHO nullification won’t solve the problem like an Art V approach. Art V is a blanket approach, to knock down the federal leviathan back to size. Nullification might be good for single issues for specific states that use it. Won’t EVER help here in the joke of MA, and other states like NY, CA, etc. Nullification might be good used here and there to help spur Art V.
To read this post is to think the Framers purposely sabotaged the system they worked so hard to design and implement. They even question the legitimacy of the Constitution they pretend to support.
It is also designed to flood the zone, to load up on multiple inaccuracies, half truths and outright lies, such that the uninformed will be overwhelmed and recoil in horror.
It’s especially a shame this goes on at FR.
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.