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
Blow it. You seem to be part of the small contention here that always want to pick a fight with someone over some innocuous post that was not specific enough to deride me as to what I meant or knew when I typed it.
Here let me help you, you win. Now you have no reason to respond. I bow to your conservative superiority and unmatched knowledge of our processes. I am beaten.
Have a good day up in which ever side of the Cascades you are on.
[ 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. ]
That is true but given how far DC has degraded it NOW involves not only kickbacks, ryders for cronies, hard core drugs and underage prosititution rings....
Your textbook for civics class must be a kennedy era one....
Not a brand new common core Obama approved one... :P
Your commentary is not serious and borders on the juvenile.
Take your forum graffiti somewhere else.
Your ignorance was on display; that was your doing.
Now you can get all pissed off all you want but the thread is clear that your post was ignorant or foolish or both.
I disagree, though only slightly — one aspect in which it is broken is that it does not punish those federal agents (officers, 'agents', employees, representatives, senators, justice, judges, etc) that break the Constitution. (i.e. what happened when it came to light that the NSA was routinely violating the Fourth Amendment? Nothing.) Another area in which it is flawed is that there is no limit on taxation (though the second amendment should, technically, limit the unamended Constitution's taxation power of the Congress). — Plus it will take an Amendment to get rid of Wickard and all the crap that use it as precedent.
NO, I do not propose violence but an Article V Con Con may be the spark that ignites another civil war because there are many Americans who will not capitulate to tyranny. I do not believe I am alone in believing an Article V Con Con will not restore anything but will only serve to further erode our liberties and hand even more power to the tyrant class. I know, 2/3 of states have to ratify any changes to the constitution. Consider, the oligarchs are not about to relinquish back to the people any of their ill gotten tyrannical advances.
But the below-the-line comments were your own.
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.
The convention CANNOT toss out the existing Constitution because it can only propose amendments to the existing Constitution.
If you think that it will pass a single amendment that says "Nullify the entire Constitution and replace it with this..." then you are nuts.
-PJ
The difference was that there wasn't a ratified Constitution with an Article VI Supremacy Clause and an Article V amendment process already in force at the time of the Constitutional Convention.
A "runaway" convention would be unconsitutional this time.
-PJ
It is unfortunate that such a stalwart, conservative site has so many LIV’s when it comes to this issue...
I’m not sure we have time to educate even those who CLAIM to be on our side...
For those of you who don’t know Jacquerie, she works TIRELESSLY...
http://www.conventionofstates.com/news
Why would the framer’s put this in the constitution if it wasn’t to be used when the federal government got out of control? Are you reading a different version of the constitution than I am? And what, may I ask, is your solution to this problem? Succession? Revolt? The constitution was not drawn up in one day. There were many meetings and discussions. They tried to cover every angle to preserve liberty in America. You are right that anything can be brought up in an Article V meeting of the states but you are missing the ratification process. It is not a constitutional convention. It is a meeting of the states to discuss and propose amendments to the constitution. Washington is not going to fix itself. I say we take the only stand we have left and that is to use what the framers gave us to pull back the powers of the Washington elite. All you fear mongers just need to get out of the way. Unless, of course, you have a better idea that doesn’t tear this country apart or cause the loss of millions of innocent lives.
I dispute this.
Article I Section 6 says:
I argue that since Congress must call for the Article V Convention of the States, that the convention becomes a "civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created."
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Therefore, Article I members of Congress cannot simultaneously be delegates to an Article V convention.
-PJ
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Forbidden Subjects:
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
Explicitly forbidden:
Implicitly forbidden:
I have two reference works for those interested.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
I agree with you with respect to a means of immediate recourse to fire any politician who brakes their oath of office or abuses their power of authority. As well, this includes ALL Judges and any judge who tries to legislate from the bench against the KNOWN and UNDISPUTED will of the people. No one judge should ever be allowed to interpret the law when it involves Constitutional law. If I’m not mistaken, our Constitution did not allow for all the lucrative perks and pensions afforded to today’s DC politicians. It is that kind of political self serving crap amendments that have corrupted our Constitution’s original intent.
From your link, Obola Hisself recently redefined the law for:
Universities
Public schools
Fire and police departments
The financial industry
Utilities
State legislatures
Orders of nuns
Black parents
Small-business owners
The electrons inside the Internet
Random sections of the U.S. Constitution
And we’re supposed to fear an Article V convention?
But the below-the-line comments were your own.
****
That was a quote from the article, not my own ideas.
Since the article was long, it was a short portion to get people to read the article.
I am not the author of the article by the way.
That is where you offer your own opinion on the article that you posted.
I assumed that: 1) you were not the author of the article, and 2) the below the line comments were not the words of the author.
-PJ
How many times do we have to say to these people this is NOT a Constitutional Convention. With attitudes such as yours we may just as well lie down and die.
They have already done that through a corrupt court system, the Constitution exist as a historical document with no power to restrain the Courts or Congress. If you think not, then list all the rights enumerated in the Constitution, that you feel are 100% protected.
I was in favor of Article V prior to posting this article because I believe in Mark Levin - that he would not lead patriots astray.
I believe there is hope for our country and article V may play a role, if there is a consensus.
Debate and discussion are the avenue of gaining a consensus.
As Ted Cruz would say – you need to win the debate.
This could have been an opportunity to show your ability to provide the arguments for Article V and win the debate but instead, there have been attacks that demonstrate questionable tactics.
Will you be prepared with arguments when faced with an opponent’s viewpoint?
Most certainly 'YES'!
However, this is not the first anti-Art-V thread... indeed it is one of hundreds. The same arguments are put forth, and the same set of folks are here at FR to defend against them. It seems that the JBS have an agenda, perhaps that has nothing to do with Art-V.
It just gets frustrating hearing the same arguments and repeating the same counterpoints.
When something new appears, then there is incentive to take the argument seriously and respond.
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.