I Have A Question For All of Our Political Ladies Out There - Where are the Women - Only One Is Playing With Our Constitution?
Washington was never meant to be a long-term home and it was surely never meant to make millionaires, but that is what they have given us. Those controlling this country do as they please and we the people have to accept their mistakes until the run for office again. It is up to us, the voters, to know these supporting individuals are and their background.
A COMMENT BY Diane O'Neill Kepus (Editor)
As citizens of this country, the registered voters of this country elect Senators to represent us in Congress, yet there are many supporting this CON V of whom many of us know nothing of their reputations or background.
If this whole process is to be done correctly, I believe that any changes intended to be made should be placed on ballots in each individual states giving our thoughts and wishes regarding anything to be changed on our CONSTITUTION. HOW CAN THE SENATORS AROUND THE COUNTRY REPRESENT US IF WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY INTEND TO PRESENT, CHANGE OR VOTE ON. It is "WE the PEOPLE" who should be in control of something as important as "playing games with our Constitution to fit their desires and not the PEOPLE of this country as a whole!
As citizens of this country, the registered voters of this country elect Senators to represent us in Congress, yet there are many supporting this CON V of whom many of us know nothing of their reputations or background.
If this whole process is to be done correctly, I believe that any changes intended to be made should be placed on ballots in each individual states giving our thoughts and wishes regarding anything to be changed on our CONSTITUTION. HOW CAN THE SENATORS AROUND THE COUNTRY REPRESENT US IF WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY INTEND TO PRESENT, CHANGE OR VOTE ON. It is "WE the PEOPLE" who should be in control of something as important as "playing games with our Constitution to fit their desires and not the PEOPLE of this country as a whole!
Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention
If this country is truly working on the 2 party system, them why are the Republicans who claim to be Conservative aligning up with Soros?
If this country is truly working on the 2 party system, them why are the Republicans who claim to be Conservative aligning up with Soros?
|
SUPPORTERS
Most of these names are familiar to you and most of the reasons they give for wanting a Con V are addressing issues the voters should be taking care of at the polls. Electing the same people year after year to Congress who are determined to ruin this country is only making a bad situation worse.
AMERICANS MUST STEP UP AND TAKE CONTROL! This is a very dangerous game these people are playing. Why would you or I trust these individuals to make decisions for the masses when some of them have definitely passed legislation that Americans considered all wrong. |
In fact, Soros has been proven to be funding both sides of this move which is typical of someone like him.
|
Current Supporters Who Have Released
Their Names - Do you know the backgrounds of these individuals & their reasons for supporting a COS?
Leader of the Pack - Mark Meckler
How many of you remember when he was on the board od Tea Party Patriots & he and Jenny Beth Martin were taking $5K a month salaries - when caught Meckler quit! That was donation money from hard working Americans.
|
Greg Abbott
David Barton Morton Blackwell Dr. Dave Brat Jeb Bush Kirk Cameron Dr. Ben Carson Pete Coors Lt. Col. Bill Cowin USMC Ret Ken Cuccinelli Steve Deace Gov. Ron DeSantis Rep. Jeff Duncan Gov. Mike Dunleavy |
Sean Hannity
Pete Hegseth Steve Hilton David Horowitz Mike Huckabee Lawrence Jones Bobby Jindal Charlie Kirk Mark Levin Rep. Tracy Mann Mark Meadows Eric Metaxas Sarah Palin Rand Paul |
Vevek Ramaswamy
Lawrence Reed Lt. Gov Mark Robinson Chip Roy Dave Rubin Marco Rubio Rick Santorum Sen Ben Sasse Ben Shapiro Sen Jim Talent Rep. Wm Timmons Bob Vander Platts Allen West |
Article V Convention Supporters are Delusional by Nancy Thorner October 3, 2016
The Article V Convention (ConCon) is an issue that has been prominent on the agenda of Eagle Forum for many years and which Phyllis Schlafly wrote extensively about before her death on September 5, 2016, at age 92.
This extremely important and timely topic was explored in a talk given by Publius Huldah on Sunday, September 18 at Eagle Council XLV held at the Marriott St. Louis Airport-St.Louis, Sept. 16-17-18, 2016. Her topic: When People Ignore Our Constitution, Is Amending It the Solution?
Publius Huldah is a retired litigation attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge).
She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs. She also shows how The People can, by learning our Founding Principles themselves, restore our Constitutional Republic.
According to Publius Huldah, 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 of the US Constitution provides these two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution:
1) Congress proposes amendments and submits them to the States for ratification, the method we used for our existing 27 Amendments]; or 2) Congress calls a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. For good reasons, explained later in the article, we have never used this method.
Framers who actually signed the Constitution, never said the purpose of amendments was to rein in the feds if they usurp powers. What they actually said:
New constitutions already written waiting for a ConCon convention
As Publius Huldah noted, 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.” The Constitution for the Newstates of America imposes a totalitarian dictatorship. (Article XII, Article 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.)
But did you know there are other Constitutions already prepared and waiting to be imposed through the means of a convention? Huldah believes that should the call for a convention succeed, 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?
Constitutions already prepared and waiting for a convention:
In the event that an Article V convention should be called, Congress has already examined procedures for “calling” a convention to be ready if and when the need arises.
The revised Congressional Research Service report of April 11, 2014 and noted here, exposes as false the assurances that the States would be in control of a convention. Congress has historically viewed its powers respecting “calling” a convention as exclusive and extensive. It’s also totally consistent with the last clause of Article I, Sec. 8 which delegates to Congress power to makeall laws “necessary and proper” to carry out the power vested in Congress in Article V to “call” the convention.
In the final analysis, the nature of the convention (and its controlling force) will likely not to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and a convention assembled. But should enough states sign on to warrant a constitutional assembly, by then it would be too late to stop a convention from going forward. Once convened, delegates could whatever they wanted, 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. . .”
Motivating factor behind ConCon push
A cry for a balanced budget amendment is often used as a reason why the Constitution needs to be amended, but federal spending is already limited by the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government as to the list of objects on which Congress is permitted to spend money on. If it’s not on the list, Congress is usurping powers not delegated when it appropriates money for it, as such the Constitution doesn’t provide a budget. A balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) would fundamentally transform our constitution from one of enumerated powers only to one of general and unlimited powers, because the federal government would then be authorized by the Constitution to exercise power only any object they decide to put into the budget.
Publius Huldah, in an article published on January 18, 2016, How a balanced budget amendment would give the federal government lawful power over whatever they want, went through the Constitution to make up a list of the objects on which Congress is permitted to spend money. The first nine on Hulidah’s list of 17 follow:
Supporters of Con Con today are deluded into thinking that choosing wise and honorable delegates would pose no problem because states can make laws controlling their delegates. They dismiss, however, that since it is the liberal Congress, not the States, that would call the convention under Article V and set the rules for it, there is no way to limit what delegates Congress would allow to participate in the convention. The name “Convention of States” is therefore a deception. The real name should be “Convention called by Congress.”
“Never Trump” people are the leaders in pushing the Convention of States. They include Eric O’Keefe (who led the delusional effort at this summer’s Republican Convention in Cleveland to deny Trump the nomination) and Michael Farris (who has continued to publicly criticize Trump). These “Never Trump” people are the new RINOS. Failing to back the Donald Trump, do we want our Constitution rewritten by them?
What would prevent backers of the Convention of States from engaging in tactics of the Left, such as using secret, undisclosed big donors to finance their ConCon projects. The secret donors may have received secret promises about what a new convention would actually do. David Koch of the Koch brothers, who may be funding the project, supports abortion and gay rights, and refuses to support Trump. George Soros is also pushing for ConCon, using his immense fortune to do so.
Three circumstances existed for the original Constitution to succeed which do not exist today: 1) secrecy from the media, 2) the participants had all given their lives to fight against tyranny in the American Revolution, and 3) the selfless leader George Washington presided.
It does not help that 38 states would still be needed to ratify. ConCon would become like a runaway freight train impossible to stop, just as state legislatures ratified the terrible 17th Amendment to change how U.S. Senators are elected. There is little doubt that the first thing a ConCon would do is to repeal the Second Amendment, our right to bear arms. In the final analysis, in a nation as politically polarized as ours, you couldn’t get 38 states to agree the sun rises in the east.
Most importantly, if Congress is not obeying our current Constitution, how can writing a new one be a solution?
Concluding thoughts attributed to Publius Huyldah
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. Furthermore, the conspirators have built a grassroots operation of volunteers to sell their scheme to State legislators.
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 (in light of the Declaration of Independence). And enforcing it!
Part 2: Mark Levin’s so-called “Liberty Amendments” will be shown to do the opposite of what he claims would be the result.
This extremely important and timely topic was explored in a talk given by Publius Huldah on Sunday, September 18 at Eagle Council XLV held at the Marriott St. Louis Airport-St.Louis, Sept. 16-17-18, 2016. Her topic: When People Ignore Our Constitution, Is Amending It the Solution?
Publius Huldah is a retired litigation attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge).
She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs. She also shows how The People can, by learning our Founding Principles themselves, restore our Constitutional Republic.
According to Publius Huldah, 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 of the US Constitution provides these two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution:
1) Congress proposes amendments and submits them to the States for ratification, the method we used for our existing 27 Amendments]; or 2) Congress calls a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. For good reasons, explained later in the article, we have never used this method.
Framers who actually signed the Constitution, never said the purpose of amendments was to rein in the feds if they usurp powers. What they actually said:
- that the novelty and difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision (Mr. Gerry at the federal convention on June 5, 1787);
- that amendments remedy defects in the Constitution (Hamilton at the federal convention on Sep. 10, 1787);
- that amendments address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers” (Federalist No. 85, 13th paragraph.
New constitutions already written waiting for a ConCon convention
As Publius Huldah noted, 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.” The Constitution for the Newstates of America imposes a totalitarian dictatorship. (Article XII, Article 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.)
But did you know there are other Constitutions already prepared and waiting to be imposed through the means of a convention? Huldah believes that should the call for a convention succeed, 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?
Constitutions already prepared and waiting for a convention:
- 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. (Not being revealed to conservatives is that the real purpose of a convention it to obtain 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 needs a new Constitution to transform this nation from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union. It’s about Re-zoning the World: The Merging of the Americas in a New Global Order.” One of the first major political events that President G.W. Bush was involved in when he took office was the Summit of the Americas, held in Quebec City, April 20-22, 2001. At this time G.W. put into action one of his main campaign platforms, an expanded trade program, which he said would revitalize America’s slumping economy, the same economic agenda likewise pushed by his father, G.H. Bush and Bill Clinton with the same ultimate goal — A One World Government.
In the event that an Article V convention should be called, Congress has already examined procedures for “calling” a convention to be ready if and when the need arises.
The revised Congressional Research Service report of April 11, 2014 and noted here, exposes as false the assurances that the States would be in control of a convention. Congress has historically viewed its powers respecting “calling” a convention as exclusive and extensive. It’s also totally consistent with the last clause of Article I, Sec. 8 which delegates to Congress power to makeall laws “necessary and proper” to carry out the power vested in Congress in Article V to “call” the convention.
In the final analysis, the nature of the convention (and its controlling force) will likely not to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and a convention assembled. But should enough states sign on to warrant a constitutional assembly, by then it would be too late to stop a convention from going forward. Once convened, delegates could whatever they wanted, 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. . .”
Motivating factor behind ConCon push
A cry for a balanced budget amendment is often used as a reason why the Constitution needs to be amended, but federal spending is already limited by the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government as to the list of objects on which Congress is permitted to spend money on. If it’s not on the list, Congress is usurping powers not delegated when it appropriates money for it, as such the Constitution doesn’t provide a budget. A balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) would fundamentally transform our constitution from one of enumerated powers only to one of general and unlimited powers, because the federal government would then be authorized by the Constitution to exercise power only any object they decide to put into the budget.
Publius Huldah, in an article published on January 18, 2016, How a balanced budget amendment would give the federal government lawful power over whatever they want, went through the Constitution to make up a list of the objects on which Congress is permitted to spend money. The first nine on Hulidah’s list of 17 follow:
- The Census.
- Publishing the Journals of the House and Senate.
- Salaries of Senators and Representatives.
- Salaries of civil officers of the United States.
- Pay the Debts.
- Pay tax collectors.
- Regulate commerce with foreign Nations, among the several states, and Indian Tribes.
- Immigration office.
- The mint.
Supporters of Con Con today are deluded into thinking that choosing wise and honorable delegates would pose no problem because states can make laws controlling their delegates. They dismiss, however, that since it is the liberal Congress, not the States, that would call the convention under Article V and set the rules for it, there is no way to limit what delegates Congress would allow to participate in the convention. The name “Convention of States” is therefore a deception. The real name should be “Convention called by Congress.”
“Never Trump” people are the leaders in pushing the Convention of States. They include Eric O’Keefe (who led the delusional effort at this summer’s Republican Convention in Cleveland to deny Trump the nomination) and Michael Farris (who has continued to publicly criticize Trump). These “Never Trump” people are the new RINOS. Failing to back the Donald Trump, do we want our Constitution rewritten by them?
What would prevent backers of the Convention of States from engaging in tactics of the Left, such as using secret, undisclosed big donors to finance their ConCon projects. The secret donors may have received secret promises about what a new convention would actually do. David Koch of the Koch brothers, who may be funding the project, supports abortion and gay rights, and refuses to support Trump. George Soros is also pushing for ConCon, using his immense fortune to do so.
Three circumstances existed for the original Constitution to succeed which do not exist today: 1) secrecy from the media, 2) the participants had all given their lives to fight against tyranny in the American Revolution, and 3) the selfless leader George Washington presided.
It does not help that 38 states would still be needed to ratify. ConCon would become like a runaway freight train impossible to stop, just as state legislatures ratified the terrible 17th Amendment to change how U.S. Senators are elected. There is little doubt that the first thing a ConCon would do is to repeal the Second Amendment, our right to bear arms. In the final analysis, in a nation as politically polarized as ours, you couldn’t get 38 states to agree the sun rises in the east.
Most importantly, if Congress is not obeying our current Constitution, how can writing a new one be a solution?
Concluding thoughts attributed to Publius Huyldah
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. Furthermore, the conspirators have built a grassroots operation of volunteers to sell their scheme to State legislators.
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 (in light of the Declaration of Independence). And enforcing it!
Part 2: Mark Levin’s so-called “Liberty Amendments” will be shown to do the opposite of what he claims would be the result.
