We The People USA

Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic

Open Letter to State Legislators Everywhere: The Other Side of the Article V Convention Issue

Open Letter to State Legislators Everywhere:

The Other Side of the Article V Convention

Issue Publius Huldah

November 12, 2015

Open Letter to State Legislators Everywhere: The Other Side of the Article V Convention Issue If there is an Article V convention, we will lose the Constitution we have, and another Constitution will be imposed. You are not getting both sides of this issue. Throughout the Country, those of us who are warning of the dangers of an Article V convention are marginalized, ridiculed, smeared, shut out of meetings, and barred from speaking in public forums. THIS short essay from the Principled Policy Blog describes what we face every day. THIS article is an account by Donny Harwood, a Citizen of Tennessee, describing how he was shut out of the public meeting which the Convention of States people held on October 19, 2015 at the Millennium Maxwell House Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee. According to The Leaf-Chronicle, a number of Tennessee Legislators were at the meeting. A prominent Tennessee radio talk show host was also present. And everyone at the meeting was prevented from hearing the other side of this issue. The reason convention proponents forbid dissenting voices is that we prove, by means of Facts and original source documents, that the claims and promises of the convention proponents are false. HERE are some of the original source documents Legislators would hear about if they were presented with the other side of this issue. We are in the final stage of a takeover. Leftists of every variety want a new Constitution to legalize our transformation from the constitutional Republic created by our existing Constitution to a dictatorship. To get a new Constitution, they need a convention. So they are telling conservatives that our Constitution is causing our problems and we need to amend the Constitution. And they say we can only make the amendments they say we need at a convention. Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amending our Constitution. Congress: Proposes amendments, or Calls a convention to propose amendments if 34 States apply for it. The first method was used for our existing 27 amendments: Congress proposed them and sent them to the States for ratification or rejection. Under the second method, Congress calls a convention. We have never had a convention under Article V. Such conventions are extremely dangerous. THIS is one of many articles which illustrate the danger, sets forth warnings from two of our Framers and two former US Supreme Court Justices, and explains why Delegates to a convention can NOT be controlled by State laws. National conventions are dangerous because the Delegates have the plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification. The video by Chuck Michaelis at the bottom of THIS page explains these plenipotentiary powers. Such Delegates are the Sovereign Representatives of The People and have the power to impose a new Constitution. This has already happened in our history: At the Federal Convention of 1787, this plenipotentiary power was exercised to replace our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, with the Constitution we now have. On February 21, 1787, The Continental Congress called a convention "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation". But instead of proposing amendments to our first Constitution, the Delegates wrote a new Constitution - the one we now have. Furthermore, the new Constitution had a new and easier mode of ratification: Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (p 8-9) provided that Amendments to the Articles had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States. But the new Constitution, drafted at the "amendments" convention of 1787, provided at Art. VII thereof that it would be ratified upon approval by only nine of the then existing 13 States. So! Not only do Delegates to a national convention have this plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution; the precedent to do so has already been established. The Left has been pushing for a convention for 50 years - ever since the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. They need a convention to get it imposed. Several other Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention. If there is a convention, the only issues will be (1) whose Constitution will be imposed by the Delegates; and (2) what new mode of ratification will be set forth in the new Constitution. The Constitution for the Newstates of America imposes a totalitarian dictatorship. Article XII, § 1 thereof provides for ratification by a Referendum called by the President. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. The Revolutionary Communist Party USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America. George Soros, Marxist law professors all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder want a Marxist Constitution in place by the year 2020. The "Convention of States" project wants a "re-written" Constitution which legalizes powers the federal government has already usurped, and delegates new powers to the federal government such as total power over children. Yet they are telling conservatives that they want a convention so they can get amendments "to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government"! Under the planned North American Union, Canada, the United States, and Mexico will surrender their sovereignty to a Parliament set over the three countries. The United States will need a new Constitution to transform us from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union. This is what the Establishment wants. And it is being imposed on us by stealth. Read the Task Force Report of the Council on Foreign Relations HERE. And to see how the European Union is working out for the formerly sovereign nations of Europe, watch this 7.5 minute video by Pat Condell. In the past, conservatives defeated the periodic pushes for a convention. So the Left changed tactics: Now, they are marketing it to appeal to conservatives: they are telling conservatives that a convention is the only way to rein in the federal government. These leftists, some wearing conservatives' clothing, are using the classic techniques of the Left: They are not telling the truth; they are smearing their opponents; and they have divided conservatives. Conservatives who fell for the marketing have been induced to attack and exclude conservatives who are warning of the dangers of a convention. And they won't let us address their groups. Our existing Constitution really was a 5,000 year miracle. We delegated only a handful of enumerated powers to the federal government – you can see what we delegated HERE. Our Constitution doesn't need "fixing" – we need to restore the Constitution we already have. We begin the Restoration by reading and learning our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. And enforcing it! See, in this regard, the Tenth Amendment Center's 2015 State of the Nullification Movement Report.

For the Love of God and Country, heed this warning. Very truly yours, Publius Huldah

I am under the impression that a Constitutional Convention is different than the the Convention of States or so I thought but I am still not getting a clear picture on this..  Even though I have read and checked so many site's out about this..  Here is a link I found a while ago I thought I would bring over. There are many good people on both sides of this issue, I also have a lot of links on this issue from both sides if anyone is interested.. I know that George Soros is pushing for it which concerns me a bit.  I thought this was actually only about 3 things or amendments to the Constitution one being term limits, another being a balance budget right now the 3rd excape's me..... I know Magnus Colorado is big in to this he might have more information .I think it is important for us to know about this and pay attention, understand it we are in very dangerous times in our Country.. We need to know especially what it can do to our Country... Here is a link:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17522-conven...

Friday, 31 January 2014

Convention of the States: Wrong on History, Nullification

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

Convention of the States: Wrong on History, Nullification

Sometimes it seems that many of the “scholars” tying their names and reputations to the Convention of the States (COS) movement seem to make misstatements that call into question their credibility.

For example, the following bit of “history” is recounted on the COS FAQ page:

This claim that Congress gets to choose the delegates also goes against common sense. Just because one party "calls" a convention, doesn't it mean it gets to choose the delegates for the other parties. Think about it. Virginia called the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Did it get to choose the delegates for Massachusetts? Of course not. Massachusetts did. Each state chooses its own delegates; it doesn't matter who calls the convention. This is Agency law 101 and basic common sense.  

Let’s look closely at the details of this paragraph.

First, who called the Philadelphia Convention of 1787? Virginia, as the COS claims? No! The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called by the Continental Congress on February 21, 1787.

ULINE Shipping Supplies

Huge Catalog! Over 30,000 Products. Same Day Shipping from 11 Locations

www.ULINE.com

Not only did Virginia not call the Philadelphia Convention, but the report from the Continental Congress calling for states to send delegates to it highlights the role played by New York, not the Old Dominion.

So, on their website, rather than ignore a bit of history that doesn’t fit their purposes, the COS misrepresents the historical record, perhaps hoping people would not take the time to research the subject for themselves.

Such a revision may seem minor, but if an Article V convention was such a good idea, one as safe and supported by history as the COS scholars say, why would they need to fiddle with the historical record at all?

Furthermore, does it seem wise or safe to trust the care of something as potentially powerful as a constitutional convention to a group whose leadership can’t get right such basic facts of American history, particularly the history of the Constitution Convention itself?

Next, despite its citation of principles of “Agency law 101,” the COS movement’s attitude toward nullification ignores basic tenets of the law of agency that would have been taught in that fictional class.

The law of agency applies when one party gives another party legal authority to act on the first party’s behalf. The first party is called the principal and the second party is called the agent. The principal may grant the agent as much or as little authority as suits his purpose. That is to say, by simply giving an agent certain powers, that agent is not authorized to act outside of that defined sphere of authority. 

Upon its ratification, the states, as principals, gave limited power to the central government to act as their agent in certain matters of common concern: defense, taxation, interstate commerce, etc.

The authority of the agent — in this case the federal government — is derived from the agreement that created the principal/agent relationship. Whether the agent is lawfully acting on behalf of the principal is a question of fact. The agent may legally bind the principal only insofar as its actions lie within the contractual boundaries of its power. Should the agent exceed the scope of its authority, not only is the principal not held accountable for those acts, but the breaching agent is legally liable to the principal (and any affected third parties who acted in reliance on the agent’s authority) for that breach.

Under the law of agency, the principal may revoke the agent’s authority at will. It would be unreasonable to oblige the principals to honor promises of an agent acting outside the boundaries of its authority as set out in the document that created the agency in the first place.

Imagine the chaos that would be created if principals were legally bound by the acts of an agent that “went rogue” and acted prejudicially to the interests of the principals from whom he derived any power in the first place. It is a fundamental tenet of the law of agency that the agent may lawfully act only for the benefit of the principal.

Inexplicably, this is the position taken by COS when they argue that the states may not nullify unconstitutional federal acts and refuse to be bound by an agent that repeatedly exceeds its authority. Not only does this agent (the federal government) habitually breach the agency contract, but it does so in a manner that irreparably harms the principal (the states).

Finally, let's use an analogy to put a finer point on the agency angle specifically and the need to alter the Constitution generally.

Imagine that a person agrees with a contractor to build a house. The two parties meet and sign off on a contract for the building of the house which includes a blueprint of the home. The contractor begins work, but after a while decides to start building wings on the house that weren’t provided for in the contract and the blueprint and starts running up enormous debts to build these extra-contractual additions.

When the future homeowner visits the building site, what should his reaction be? Should he decide that he should go back to the contract and change parts of it, adding provisions reiterating the general contractor’s restrictions and responsibilities?

Would a contractor with such obvious disregard for contractual limits on his power be likely to suddenly begin being bound by the new restrictions? Not likely.

This is exactly what the COS people are promising, though. They state that even though the federal government “is spending this country into the ground,” the best way to stop this abuse of power is to add new restrictions to those already included in the original contract (the Constitution) that forbid this type of overreach. 

Those of us opposing an Article V convention, however, believe that the best way to stop the federal government’s constant disregard of constitutional limits on its power is for states (the principals) to enforce those limits. 

We realize that the federal government will treat any new amendment restricting its authority the same way they treat those already in the contract.

 

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, the Second Amendment, and the surveillance state.  He is the co-founder of Liberty Rising, an educational endeavor aimed at promoting and preserving the Constitution. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.

Related articles:

Article V: Con-Con or Nothing Is the Cry of This Cause Célèbre

Article V Group Ignores States' Complicity in Federal Power Grab

Article V Convention: Dangerous Precedent, Dangerous Loyalties

Convention of States and Article V: Tearing Up the Talking Points

Compact for America Proposal Could Increase Federal Power

Convention of the States: Scholars Ignore History

Repair vs. Restore: Why Constitution Doesn’t Need Article V Fix

In Defense of Con-Con, Meckler Chooses Ridicule Over Rebuttal

Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention

Views: 74

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Lots of words, heady, long; however Aiding The Republic of the United States of American To Save Herself -- Potentially Monumental in Ultimately Saving Republic USA!

Fighting For Liberty,

USA_kat

Long article. 

Know This,

Publius Huldah is using outdated arguments and untrue arguments about Article V. It remains the same as if Congress called it. the difference in a States Petitioned for Article V Convention is after Congress calls it they must stand back and the states decide which amendment proposals are to be sent out for ratification. Look at all but one of the Amendments (the 27th that was around since the original bill of rights was proposed) those amendments have been carefully crafted by Congress to help grow the Federal Government and increase it's and Congresses power for their personal benefits. I will say one thing Publius Huldah has recently came out and said it would be good to Repeal some of the existing Amendments.Every one of those links support the current situation that keeps the Progressive Regime in power including the Soros Influence over American Politics.

HARVARD LAW SCHOOL DEBATE AND SPEECHES ON ARTICLE V

Here is a posting the entire series of Harvard Law School videos debating the Article V State Amendment process. It is quite good and will assist all gain at least a basis for further discussion and should serve to reduce fear of a runaway convention. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ivdnxcVS5U0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZbJ7NOF3HRU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wQyrAiqkoRU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0lXcgUBnYMI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z6YVuBOtpFM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ivdnxcVS5U0

Why we need to repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments is here in this interview of a Lobbyist that went to jail . . 
This is the man they mentioned in the NWV link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pkvIS5pZ0eI 
 When States petition for an Article V convention Congress must call it then step back and have no say about what is proposed as an amendment. However all the delegates must agree on the wording for a proposed amendment before it can be sent to Congress to be sent out to the States for ratification. Mangus is also correct in the fact if 38 States agree on a proposed amendment and agree on the official wording of that amendment then vote to ratify that amendment, Congress can do nothing to stop it. Neither can the Supreme Court because that amendment would become part of the Constitution and subject to having to be repealed to remove it.Heck, I would like to see the 28th amendment proposed by Mangus be voted on and ratified and One other amendment, specifically; "The Supreme Court has no legal or Constitutional grounds for Judicial Review.
As a final thought, 20 some States have already adopted model legislation similar to the model legislation from Indiana;

Publius, Lamb, John Birch, Eagle Forum are all preaching a false narrative and are supported by very few Constitutional scholars. They even use Far Left Supreme court Justices that gave us the final vote on Roe V Wade as being against the Article V method to correct - wonder why? Abortion?

Publius has attacked and called names to most Constitutional experts when she has no accomplishments, she is a lawyer making a living selling opinion that are flawed at best.

Rather than rehash all these false narrative I will ask - in 235 years of having and using Article V why has the Constitution not been destroyed? Here are some pro and con articles the false narrative is not winning the day Pulbius after debating many and losing has finally in Sept. of 2013 accepted that we just need to REPEAL the 16th and 17th amendment and to do so would be safe well folks Article V is the only way that can happen as Congress will not act to reduce powers and decrease tax inflows - so it must then be up to the States to force a Article V repeal amendment adding the 14th as it give the courts power over State Constitutions [a position that the Founder never presented].

http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/anti-pro-av.html

http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/not-a-constitutional-con...

Very Logical argument Mangus, Thanks for your Scholarly input.

Here is why so many are confused about the use of Article V now the Tea Party is using it for fund raising. Out Library site is free and does not even accept donations.

http://news.teapartyinfo.org/HM?b=4VlE7CuN8xIRihegGmIkM7zh5M4vwp2VQ...

Of course the Progressive left desires to end free speech, Religious freedoms, States rights and powers, increase taxes, take land and property rights away from the individuals, control school books and methods taught. yes in fact folks they have forced these policies into our lives already.

The issue they face is now push back at the State levels and then the courts. They fear Article V actions by the many States as few are now blue. 

Yes Soros and others have presented a desire for a Article V movement as it is the only way to make the left agenda legal. So they do not fight ours but try to scare all with the false narrative of a run away convention. Let me now share the meaning of convention in the time of the Founders - it simply means a meeting of two or more to discuss business or issues. 

So, now like was done with ratifying the 21st amendment by STATE CONVENTION and has anyone seen or published any run away with those convention? No is the answer.

So, the States can then select the entire Legislative body [both chambers] to have one vote - approve the proposed amendment and then when sent back from the Congress to ratify in either case by votes in the State Chambers and when 38+ State legislatures Ratify it becomes the law of the land.

RSS

Badge

Loading…

Online Magazines

Accuracy In Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
American Conservative
Amer Conservative Daily
The American Prospect
Atlanta Const Journal
The Atlantic Monthly
Boston Review
Blacklisted News
The Bulletin
Canada Free Press
Capitalism Magazine
Chronicles Magazine
City Journal
CNS News
CNIN Truth
Conservative Economist
Consortium News
Commentary Magazine
The Conservative Edge
Conservative Outpost
Corruption Chronicals (JW)
The Corzine Times
CounterPunch
The Daily Caller
Daily Mail UK
Deep Journal
Digital Journal
Dissent Magazine
The Economist
Examiner
Florida Pundit
Foreign Affairs
Foreign Policy
The Freemen Institute
The Gouverneur Times NY
The Guardian UK
The Foundry (Heritage)
Free Market News
FrontPage Magazine
Gateway Pundit
The Guardian UK
The Globalist
Harper's Magazine
Harvard Inter Review
The Hill
Human Events
In These Times
The Land of the Free
Liberty Unbound
Mission America
Mother Jones
Monthly Review
The Nation
National Interest
National Ledger
National Review
New Internationalist
The New American
The New Ledger
New Left Review
New Media Journal
News Hounds
Newstin
The New Republic
News Busters
News Fifty
NewsMax
Newsweek
News Daily
News With Views
Online Journal
Oohja.com
The Palestine Chronicle
Planet Daily
Policy Review
Poligazette
Politics Daily
The Post Chronicle
Pravda
The Progressive
Reality Check
The Real News Network
Reason
Real Clear Markets
Real Clear Politics
Red Pepper
Roll Call
Russia Today
Salon
Slate
Spectator Magazine
Spiked
Telegraph UK
Time
Toward Freedom
Townhall
U.S. News & World Report
Utne Reader
Wall Street Journal Magazine
Washington Examiner
The Washington Independent
Washington Monthly
The Weekly Standard
World Net Daily
World Magazine
World Press Review
World Reports
World Tribune
Vanity Fair

© 2024   Created by WTPUSA.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service