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...

[M]

Bob,

This is wrong on many levels.

First, it is the same Article V the Congress uses and has used to their explicit advantage over the years as the one that would be used by a States Petitioned for Amendment proposal convention. If you really look at the 14th Amendment you will see the politicians who believe in Federal Supremacy have already rendered the Constitution impotent and subject to the Federal Will. They did this with three words; "No State Shall". Those words have turned around the intent of the Constitution being the chains on the Federal Government to making it the supreme power in america. Don't cite that the people are the supreme power because with the 14th they no longer are. That is Reason Number one why we need to have a states controlled convention.

Secondly; Contrary to the misinformation going around about a Constitutional Convention, the Amendment proposal convention is not and can not become a Con-Con. anyone that says it will is mistaken or is deliberately using fear tactics that only benefit those currently in power. The reasons for this is the same rules, and there are rules, apply to a State petitioned for convention that apply to a Congressional called convention. It still takes 38 States presently to ratify a proposed Amendment.

Third; The body of the Constitution is what we used to call sacrosanct and can not be permanently changed. the amendment process is by definition a process to modify and interpret the main body of the Constitution and also by definition is not permanent because Amendments can and have been repealed. Amendments are there to interpret what the people want in every successive generation. To again cite this I use the 14th 16th and 17th Amendments as examples.

The 14th changed the flow of power and while it did not abrogate the power of the people, it had the effect of making then subservient to the Federal Government without changing the original. The good thing about that is it can be repealed and the Federal Government will again be subservient to the states and the States to the people.

The 16th changed the Constitutional decree that taxes be apportioned. In fact Congress tried to legislate an income tax before the 16th was proposed by Congress and ratified and the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Again it is a good thing it can be repealed.

The 17th removed the control of the Senators from the State Legislatures. Never forget the Senators were Constitutionally bound to represent the States interests not the peoples interests directly. The House Members are the peoples representatives. Again it was Congress that proposed the amendment and it is a good thing it can be repealed.

If after digesting those facts you still think it is safer for Congress to propose amendments I have a question for you. "Do you really believe that Congress would propose a diminishment of their power and control to repeal those toxic amendments even if the people demanded they do so?" Congress will keep stealing more of our money and power unless we use what the Founders placed in the Main Body of the Constitution for the people to rein in an overreaching government like we now have.

To further explain why our Constitution is safe here is a quote from; http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html 

Why has our Constitution been classed as "rigid"?
A. The term "rigid" is used in opposition to "flexible" because the provisions are in a written document which cannot be legally changed with the same ease and in the same manner as ordinary laws. The British Constitution, which is unwritten, can, on the other hand, be changed overnight by act of Parliament

 To further explain the only way the main body of the Constitution can be modified in any way is through the amendment process. Do you distrust your fellow Americans, who by the way collectively are supposed to have the power of consensus on any changes, and believe they en-masse will allow our rights to be taken away from us?

To address your concerns about the politicians just ignoring the Constitution, I again submit they are not ignoring it, they are using the portions of it like the 14th,16th and 17th, to do what they are doing. If we take the legalities away from them and re-institute the Judeo-Christian ethos and also retain the force of law, we can force them to do our bidding as long as it conforms to the intent of the Constitution. What is currently being used on us can also be used on them when we shift the legal power back to what was originally intended in the bloodless way the Founders intended it to be used.

 

[Bob Russell]

why don't you read the entire article before making your baseless argument against it.  you are one of the poor delusional fools who believes congress will suddenly adhere to we the people because an Article V says they have to. 

[M]

Bob, 

I can't figure out if you believe what you are saying, if you are the blind fool, or if you are one of the opposition who wants to maintain the status quo for the elites in government. All those arguments in that are old and discredited.

[Bob Russell]

I'm not fool enough to believe that the corrupt and evil people running the government are suddenly going to think, "an Article V convention, we better start doing things by the Constitution". they will laugh and keep on doing what they are doing now.  the only way for Article V to work is to hang nearly every member of congress, the dnc, rnc, and almost all bureaucrats and judges.  do that and you have a decent chance at an Article V being a success.  otherwise you are pissing into the wind.  And no, I don't want to maintain the status quo.  I want the traitorous scum hanged for their treasonous and despotic actions. what do you want, more cheap talk for them to laugh at?

[M]

Bob, They won't have a choice. They will have to obey Constitutional Law if the amendments return the Constitution to it's original intent. Even the Supreme Court will not be able to override amendments that give the power back to the States and the people.

[Bob Russell]

"They will HAVE TO"?  and who is going to force them to do what they won't do now?  don't they HAVE TO follow the Constitution now? apparently not and they won't change because of a cos, until a few of them hang for not obeying.  This is the exact delusional thinking I referred to in the article. why not just hang them now and see the others fall in line?

[M]

OK Bob, continue being delusional about this. 

[Bob Russell]

I am not the delusional one.  and I noticed you didn't bother to address the problem.

[M]

Bob,

Constitutional Law will Force SCOTUS to follow it instead of legislating from the bench.

[Bob Russell]

M,  there isn't such a provision now?  I thought the Constitution prevented them from creating laws, have I misinterpreted the Constitution or are the checks and balances being ignored by the power hungry despots?

[M]

Bob, there is such a provision in the unmodified Constitution but it was obliterated by Marshall with his creating premise of Judicial review out of thin air.

[Bob Russell]

So, my premise is correct, the tyrants just ignore or twist the Constitution to suit themselves.