230 Reasons to Support a Convention of States

Convention of States ^ | April 24th 2017 | Mark Meckler

[Jacquerie]

You can tell a lot about a man by his enemies, and I’d say the same thing is true about an organization.

The Convention of States Project is using Article V of the Constitution to save the Constitution, because our Founders predicted the federal government might grow so large, corrupt, and unwieldy that it would never voluntarily restrain itself. They realized the citizens would need to reel it all back, so they gave us a tool in Article V to do just that.  Though we are just a grassroots organization, we are animated by the spirit of our founders – a patriotism unwilling to let this nation be ruined by a bunch of incompetent, unelected bureaucrats.  To call a Convention of States, we need 34 states to pass an application. Ten already have already passed the application.

That’s enough to cause some organizations to self-identify as our enemies.  Two hundred and thirty of them, to be precise, have organized to oppose a Convention of States including: Common Cause, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Daily Kos, Greenpeace USA, NAACP, National Council of La Raza Action Fund, Sierra Club, People For the American Way, Democracy 21, large national unions like the Service Employees International Unionand the AFL-CIO, Emily's List, and Planned Parenthood. The groups are the most left-wing groups you can find, dedicated to Marxism, fascism, radical environmentalism, and abortion-on-demand. It’s actually quite flattering that we’ve gotten them to do what Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders couldn’t: unify with one voice.

They know the stakes.  As much as the election of Donald Trump grieved half this nation, the left knows his ascension to the Oval Office is temporary.  There’s nothing he’s doing right now that can’t be undone in the next couple of elections.  (The only possible exception to that is his Supreme Court selections, but even the Supreme Court is mired in the politics that determine which cases are actually heard.)  The Left is uniting against us because they know we’re about to make permanent, structural change.  They find the idea of us fixing the problems they’ve spent over a hundred years creating as more horrifying than President Trump, more horrifying than an Obamacare repeal, and more horrifying than a Republican appointed Supreme Court pick.

You can tell by their lies they’re desperate.  They describe what’s going on in the most inaccurate, fear-inducing ways possible. Mark Levin, who popularly introduced the Article V convention to the nation in his best selling book “The Liberty Amendments,” said,  “They are purposefully lying or they are utterly contemptible or illiterate when it comes to our Constitutional system.” Perhaps, Mark needs to embrace the healing power of “both/and.” 

“These powerful, heavily funded organizations have awakened,” Levin continued.  “We are truly the David versus their Goliath.”   I guess that’s a pretty accurate analogy.  Once the Convention of States aims the power of the people at the regulatory state, it’ll be as permanent a change as what old Goliath experienced…  and no election in the world will be able to bring it back from the dead.

Mark Meckler is the founder of the Convention of States Project.

[Jacquerie]

Article V ping!

[PGalt]

BUMP!

[TheDandyMan]

The problem of course, would be that the same destructive forces would have as free a voice as anyone at a convention of states. They’d probably end up managing to repeal the 2nd amendment or something.

[cba123]

I’m not (at all) convinced this is a good idea.

Not at all.

[nathanbedford]

The problem of course, would be that the same destructive forces would have as free a voice as anyone at a convention of states.

The whole point Of the Article V approach is to give a voice to those forces at home and to deny destructive forces in Washington a role to play. Of course these so-called "destructive forces" would have their rights of free speech, but they would be as effectively excluded from the process of reforming the Constitution as you are right now from the ongoing process of changing the Constitution as it happens every day in Washington.

They’d probably end up managing to repeal the 2nd amendment or something.

This sentiment expresses the real source of the opposition among conservatives, an ungrounded, and I must say, a selfish fear of loss of second amendment rights. It is ungrounded because the arithmetic of ratification of any such amendment renders it realistically impossible. It is selfish because elements of the National Rifle Association would see the whole country lose its Bill of Rights if they can retain their right to bear arms. At the rate we are going we will lose not only our second amendment but what is left of the rest as well.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "if we do not hang together we shall most assuredly hang separately." If you sacrifice the rest of the Bill of Rights to appease the crocodile, he will ultimately come for the second amendment. In fact, the only long-term hope for the Second Amendment is restoration of the Constitution by the very means it provides.

[PIF]

The Dems, despite whatever safeguards are in place, will take it over and, as usual, subvert the entire process into something that either can never work, or will fit their agenda - not the conservatives’.

Major bad idea.

[Jacquerie]

If your mind’s eye equates legislatively appointed delegates with popularly elected congressmen and senators, . . . you are mistaken. Delegates will conduct themselves within the bounds of their commissions.

[nathanbedford]

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%.

After the last election Republicans control 69 houses of the 99 state legislative houses. Republicans control 31 of the 50 state legislatures. To stop any unwise or imprudent amendment would require only 13 of these 69 Statehouses (from different states) or about 19%, fewer than one in five.

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.

[knarf]

We can’t get a conservative congressional majority to do the right thing, why should we think a different kind of gathering would actually do anything a revolution is the only solution ?

[Jacquerie]

From ArticleVBlog: The John Birch Society vs. Article V.

I’ve found that Article V opponents typically equate an Article V state amendments convention with congress, an institution in which freedoms and rights are easily traded away today for money, media support, and reelection tomorrow.

This is an erroneous comparison, for congress is popularly derived and thoroughly corrupted from its designed purposes. An Article V convention will be new, fresh, uncorrupted and federal, just like the only other remaining federal institution from 1787, the familiar Electoral College (EC).

Like an Article V amendments convention, the EC is extra-congressional and completely controlled by the states. Not only congress, but the executive and judiciary have no more authority to regulate or participate in the deliberations or parliamentary rules of an Article V Convention than they do to control the EC. Both of these federal institutions derive their independence from discrete sources in the Constitution itself. Like the EC, and unlike congress, an Article V convention is temporary, and neither can be made subservient to any branch of the government. This renders the Article V convention distinct from, and superior to, the three existing branches.

I ask JBS, if the states are so wild and politically insane such that everyone should fear the outcome of a convention, why haven’t we had a ‘runaway’ session of the EC? States do not have to cast their votes for the nominee of any political party. The EC confab is a one-day event outside the control of congress or scotus. Why hasn’t the EC proved to be dangerous?

No state delegation to the EC ‘ran away’ because the duties of presidential electors are defined by state statute. In identical fashion, the states will define the duties and limits of their delegates to an Article V convention. Here, for instance, is the Indiana statute that will govern the commissions of her delegates to an Article V convention. The JBS implication that state legislatures will send lunatic delegates with plenary authority to take away rights that are unalienable, is just silly.

Furthermore, there will be an additional, yet immeasurable factor at work. Within the parameters of detailed state commissions, delegates will be entrusted to use their judgement. These men and women know that history will examine and critique their work. Will the states actually send rogues and miscreants? It is possible, yet what is far more likely is that the delegates entrusted with crafting amendments to save the republic will rise to the occasion. Fame will be their quest. Like the delegates to the federal convention of 1787, they will seek the gratitude of history.

As remnants of a more perfect union, the EC and Article V amendments convention echo the importance of liberty preserving federal institutions ahead of fuzzy populism and democracy. No people, no civil society ever met to frame their ruling institutions in order to sell themselves into slavery. While the American tradition and society are certainly under duress, resistance is in the air. It is time to take advantage of the building wave of opposition to centralized government.

The JBS stance is a curious mixture of respect and mistrust of the American people. We are trusted in the polling place every two years to elect people who are certain to operate outside the limits of our Constitution, yet we are to be denied the establishment of the only institution which may actually reverse the horrid corruption of our once free republic?

[knarf]

Where and how do the people that would make up a decisioning Article V convention come from ?

[ProtectOurFreedom]

It is actually surprising to me that all 230 Marxist opponents don’t embrace a COS. They could thoroughly destroy the U.S. using COS against itself.

[RepRivFarm]

“Where and how do the people that would make up a decisioning Article V convention come from ?”

^^^THIS^^^

Whether appointed by Legislature or Governer, this small body would have the power to change our laws completely.

Being mere humans, they would be swept away by the temptations of the wealth of the globalists, and in the end will happily do their bidding. And it will be entirely legal.

Despite protestations to the contrary in this thread, not only would we lose the protections of the 2nd amendment, we would lose the bill of rights in its entirety.

A Convention of the States is the final mile in the long road to the destruction of our country.

[knarf]

That is what I perceive.

American humanity is so interbred with alien and evil thought processes, no convention or gathering of people could EVER come close to the purity of thought our founders shared.

I'm not saying the Holy Spirit birthed America, but I AM saying the men that gathered and debated and discussed how to form a nation as idealistic as the United States, HAD to be in the same book, on the same page ... from before they even MET each other, until well after they parted ways.

We used to be of a single mind set the the public school system has succeeded in destroying.

Want America back ?

Kill the Dept of Education, the NEA and shut every building down, fire all the teachers and raise up one room school houses again taught by a girl college graduate that wants to marry and live in a particular community.

Focus on read'n', writ'n, 'rithmetic and history ... heavy on American, medium on World.

The school day is morning hours and sports or work began after noon ...

EVERYTHING I SAID ABOVE IS BASED ON THE SAME IDEALISM THAT A COS WOULD BE BASED ON .... IMPOSSIBLE PEOPLE DOING IMPOSSIBLE THINGS BECAUSE IT IS ALL PAST AND NO LONGER POSSIBLE.

[Subcutaneous Fishstick Blues]

Want America back ? Kill the Dept of Education, the NEA and shut every building down, fire all the teachers and raise up one room school houses again taught by a girl college graduate that wants to marry and live in a particular community.
And you're going to do that with the current House, Senate and Supreme Court how, exactly?
Look at how they are holding up the modest, clearly constitutional reforms Trump has proposed that he was clearly elected to do by the American people.
The people who corrupted the original creation of the founders aren't going to restore it. Or to use the popular phraseology, the swamp ain't gonna drain itself.
From the article: The Left is uniting against us because they know we’re about to make permanent, structural change.
This cannot be emphasized enough. The progressive movement succeeded in changing the structure of our government with the 16th and 17th Amendments. They were only able to build the monstrosity they did AFTER structurally changing the country as they did, thorugh these amendments.
The Senate no longer serves as the states' check on federal power and the federal government can have its way with the individual citizen directly via the IRS.
If you do not repeal the 16th and the 17th amendments, you're not going to restore the balance of power, and you're not going to be able to restore anything else.

[knarf]

I thought I was the only one that posted without reading ...

"EVERYTHING I SAID ABOVE IS BASED ON THE SAME IDEALISM THAT A COS WOULD BE BASED ON .... IMPOSSIBLE PEOPLE DOING IMPOSSIBLE THINGS BECAUSE IT IS ALL PAST AND NO LONGER POSSIBLE."

[James R. McClure Jr.]

Peace, Jacquerie,

If your mind’s eye equates legislatively appointed delegates with popularly elected congressmen and senators, . . . you are mistaken. Delegates will conduct themselves within the bounds of their commissions.

In the same way the delegates did in 1787? Did those delegates conduct themselves within the bounds of their commissions? Why should we believe that these delegates (who are not made of the same stuff as the Framers) will act to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?

More importantly, the federal government ignores and violates the Constitution daily. Why should we believe that any new boundaries the Article V convention should place upon the federal government will restrain them any more than the existing Constitution? Why open Pandora's Box when you can't guarantee that the federal government will obey your new restrictions?

James R. McClure Jr.
Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Democrat

[James R. McClure Jr.]

Peace, nathanbedford,

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.

The same was said in 1787 and we ended up with a runaway convention. Yes, the result that time was fortuitous, but the delegates which will be sent to the Article V convention aren't made of the same stuff as the Framers. Any change to the Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent of all the States. During the Constitutional Convention, that rule was changed. Why should we trust that any claims of "only 13 to defeat" and "virtually impossible" are true when we know that this did happen in the only example in united States history?

James R. McClure Jr.
Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Democrat

[Jacquerie]

<>Did those delegates conduct themselves within the bounds of their commissions?<>

Yes.

On January 10th 2017 I began a seven-part series, “Whatever Happened to the Articles of Confederation” at ArticleVBlog.com. The blog post dealing with the Paterson Plan will interest you.