ARTICLE V CONVENTION? I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!

[Bob Russell]

There are many people, some who erroneously call themselves conservatives, panting at the idea of and calling for a Constitutional Convention as a resolution to the dilemma of politicians ignoring and violating the current document.  What those poor, demented fools don't understand, despite my numerous attempts to enlighten them, is that the ruling class political elitists will either abolish the current document altogether, which is the most likely outcome, or continue to ignore any restraints on their power.  Power hungry despots, if the Article V idea were to succeed, will only continue the treasonous actions they currently engage in because they hold We the People and the idea of God-given rights to be absurd at the best and dangerous to their absolute power at worst.  Tyrants like barak obama, harry reid, nancy pelosi, mitch mcconnell, and their henchmen see themselves as better, smarter, and more deserving of power than the "unwashed masses" of peasants called We the People and will simply ignore any addendums an Article V would put on them.  The only solutions to our current situation are a return to the Judeo/Christian precepts the nation was founded on or a full blown rebellion as our founders went through, and that rebellion on the doorstep. 

read more:

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2016/01/article-v-convention-i...

[Bob Russell]

You didn't speak wrong at all and I understand the point you were making and I agree I don't want to be a detriment to the cause so I will go where I am needed most but I believe that once recovered fully that I will be an asset in the fighting.  If not I will accept any role I can fulfill successfully.

[kevin kiernan]

I will be happy to serve along side you no matter the fashion of which either of us can perform. As in life, We can sit here and plan all we want. But you know as well as I do WTSHTF. The plans are usually out the window. Trying to think of all directions things may go..Much planning will be done on the fly I am sure. One thing you can count on, is not to count on anything to much.

[Bob Russell]

Kevin, I agree and would be proud to serve beside you in whatever capacity I can serve in.  Afterall, serving is being willing to fulfill whatever role is needed and I will do just that.  I won't go in demanding it be my way or not at all because that isn't serving and I want to serve the cause of liberty as best as I can, to be an asset rather than a pain in the ass. I have preferences only, not demands.  The movement may need me more as a clerk or an encourager than as a fighter and I will do what I can to do my best in any role needed.  God bless you, and God bless America.

[M]

Bob, Read this;

• New documents uncovered: Scalia reveals his true opinion of an Article V Convention of States

• 
• Contrary to what the John Birch Society has posted; New documents uncovered: Scalia reveals his true opinion of an Article V Convention of StatesPosted by Convention of States Project on February 19, 2016When state legislatures consider whether to apply for an Article V convention for proposing amendments, the primary argument in opposition is invariably that such an application poses an intolerable risk of a “runaway convention,” i.e., a convention that proposes amendments outside the scope of the subject matter for which it was called. This question was considered by a panel of distinguished scholars (Paul Bator, Walter Berns, Gerald Gunther and Antonin Scalia) at an AEI forum held on May 23, 1979. The transcript of this forum has just been posted online (hat tip: Josh Blackman and Adam White).
  Three panelists agreed that while the matter was not free from doubt, the best view of the Constitution is that an Article V convention may be limited as a matter of law. One panelist, Professor Gunther, contended that such a limitation was merely a “moral exhortation” that was not legally binding. Tr. 8.
  Then-Professor Scalia agreed with Professors Bator and Berns that Article V was best interpreted to permit a limited convention. See Tr. 12 (“There is no reason not to interpret it to allow a limited call, if that is what the states desire.”) (Scalia); see also Tr. 7-8, 11 (Bator); Tr. 4-5 (Berns).
  Scalia, however, mostly concentrated his remarks on debunking the practical reasoning of the “runaway convention” argument. Acknowledging the theoretical possibility that an Article V convention could propose an extreme or unpalatable amendment, he noted that this possibility could equally be employed as a reason against convening Congress (or any legislative authority). Tr. 5. The right question to ask is “how high we think the risk is and how necessary we think the convention is.” Id.
  As far as the risk, Scalia made clear he had “no fear” that “extreme proposals” would come out of an Article V convention. Tr. 5. The risk of a convention exceeding its mandate “was not much of a risk.” Tr. 23. After all: “Three-quarters of the states would have to ratify whatever came out of the convention; therefore, I don’t worry about it too much.” Id.
  On the need for a convention, Scalia noted:
  The founders inserted this alternative method of obtaining constitutional amendments because they knew the Congress would be unwilling to give attention to many issues the people are concerned with, particularly those involving restrictions on the federal government’s own power. The founders foresaw that and they provided the convention as a remedy. If the only was to get that convention is to take this minimal risk, then it is a reasonable one.
  Tr. 6.
  He went on to explain that the argument against calling a convention effectively gives Congress a monopoly over amendments, contrary to the Framers’ intent: “The alternative is continuing with a system that provides no means of obtaining a constitutional amendment, except through the kindness of the Congress, which has demonstrated that it will not propose amendments—no matter how generally desired—of certain types.” Tr. 12. Indeed, Congress “likes the existing confusion, because that deters resort to the convention process.” Id.
  Scalia left no doubt as to how he weighted the risk and reward in calling a balanced budget amendment convention: “The Congress knows that the people want more fiscal responsibility, but it is unwilling to oblige it. A means comparable to [California’s] Proposition 13 is needed at the federal level. The Constitution had provided it. If the only way to clarify the law, if the only way to remove us from utter bondage to the Congress, is to take what I think to be a minimal risk on this limited convention, then let’s take it.” Tr. 13.
  Finally, Scalia put the point in the broader context of a constitutional system that was badly out of kilter: “I am not sure how long a people can accommodate to directives from a legislature it feels is no longer responsive, and to directives from a life-tenured judiciary that was never meant to be responsive, without losing its will to control its own destiny.” Tr. 18.
  Though uttered 37 years ago, these words don’t seem the least bit out of date today.
  
  Source; http://www.conventionofstates.com/new_documents_uncovered_scalia_re...

[Bob Russell]

M, thanks for the info but I don't fear a "runaway" convention in the least.  I have always maintained that the despots will simply ignore anything a COS comes up with just as they now ignore the current document.  I still want to know two things; 1: who will enforce the results?, and 2: how will that enforcement be done? I believe the only way to enforce anything on this bunch of slimes is with a gallows and a guaranteed hanging if they refuse to comply.  To do that will require that the military fully support the states and be willing to arrest and hold the despots for execution for treason by state authorities.  Unless that can be done a COS is nothing more than a feel good exercise in futility, just like voting has become.  And Scalia is dead, murdered by Obama henchmen I believe, so what he believed is rather a mute point at this time.

[M]

Bob,

As it stands right now the despots simply have the law on their side due to the 14th and 17th Amendments. If we were to return the law to our side, we would have the legal and moral means to force them to comply. If we don't do thatr soon we will lose the advantage we now have to get it done.

[Bob Russell]

The Declaration of Independence and the original intent of the Constitution give us all the moral grounds we need and you should know by now that the scum in charge make up the "law" as they go along and only to suit their wants.  Having the "law" on our side won't make a difference until we hang a few of them so an Article V is an exercise in futility.

[M]

Bob,

I know what the intent is, what we have to deal with is actual possibilities existent right now. The scumbags you refer to are using the Laws to do the things they are doing. the FIRST STEP in the process to take things back is to change the laws so they can't use them. Talking about insurrection only brands us a lunatic fringe, and does only harm to our cause. We must be the rational but legally aggressive force for change, and we must use the tools provided for us by the Founders within the constitution to bring about that change. To do anything else defeats our stated purpose and will end in failure. We must obey Constitutional Law, Use Constitutional Law, and the tools it provides even if the opposition does not at this time. What they are using is the twisted formats and color of law. That is what must be stopped first by repealing all the twisted our legalities they have placed into the interpretation of the constitution that has let Federal excesses keep growing.

Take away the 14th amendment and they can no longer mis-use it to allow for anchor babies and other idiotic applications the Supreme Courts have said was covered by it. This will not remove retroactively the excesses already committed but it will stop future mis-use.

Take away the 16th amendment and you will starve the financial excesses Congress has promoted.It will curb the ability to squander Taxpayer money used to keep expanding the size and overreach of the Feds.

Take away the 17th and you remove the Cronyism and ability of Senators to represent their political parties and special interest groups instead of representing what they were supposed to represent; the States. Not the people directly, but the States in EQUAL REPRESENTATION despite the relative size of the States themselves.

[Bob Russell]

There you go, assuming the despots will obey a new law when they don't obey what we have now.  they twist, pervert, or ignore everything we have now so how is telling them they MUST obey us after a COS going to change them?  that is a pie in the sky dream that won't happen.  You need to wake up and realize what you are dealing with.  they aren't honest, honorable, or moral people, they are power hungry, arrogant scum who will only laugh at your pronouncements.

[M]

They would have no choice. We must be smart enough to phrase the amendments so they can't twist them.

Example; The 14th,16th and 17th Amendments are repealed. they can't twist that. Doing so would also have the effect of nullifying all the regulations and SCOTUS rulings based on those three Amendments along with eliminating the IRS which came into being with the 16th.

Another Example; Any person elected to Congress can only serve a combined total of 12 years.

Third example; The current years budget must be balanced by the start of the Fiscal year and based on the last years net collected tax, and furthermore, tax rates shall not be raised except by agreement through a 2/3 vote of acceptance by the public in a general election.

Fourth example; The total expenditure for Foreign Aid must not exceed one tenth of one percent of the total collected net taxes of the previous year.

[jack ludwig]

M can you explain to me if we have an amendment to the constitution requiring the federal budget to be balanced each year how do we ever achieve that condition when 83% of the budget goes to fund SS, medicare, Medicaid and the national debt interest? That only leave 17% of the budget to run the federal government which consists of 17 departments and hundreds and hundreds of agencies. I don't think it is possible so we will never be able to meet the constitutional law.

[M]

Jack,

The closest to an actual amendment was when in the 1980's Congress acted to diffuse citizen attempts to get their States to call for a balanced budget amendment when they enacted the Gramm-Ruddman act mandating a balanced budget. the supreme court remained silent on that act for two years until the coalition to force an amendment convention fell apart then they declared the act unconstitutional.

As far as the SS funds go the first inroad was during the Eisenhower Administration by a predominantly Democrat majority in both houses of Congress that decided to go around the restriction on commingling SS funds with the general fund and decided it would be legal to take the incoming money that was collected by force of law and place IOU's in the fund to replace it. the total raping of the fund was dine during the LBJ administration by another Democratic majority in both houses where they took all of the sequestered funds and replaced everything with usless IOU's to finance Johnson's 'Great Society Fiasco we are still paying through the nose for and also that's when Medicare and Medicaid came into being by diverting funds from SS. Up until then SS was funded in total and would have been able to pay out the money taken by force from the people back to the people without ever going broke. the Democrats lied and stole the peoples money to finance their Welfare State to enslave the people with financial servitude since the  Emancipation and the second thirteenth Amendment freed the people from bondage and manual servitude.

Note; See the original 13th amendment at; http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/am13-fgd.htm  Remember a Lawyer has a legal title and is also an officer of the court system thereby being ineligible to serve in dual capacity as Lawyer and Congress official by the original amendment's provisions.