MARK LEVIN IS WRONG!! DON'T KNOW WHY A CONSTITUTIONAL ATTY
(LEVIN) isn't supporting JUST LEGALIZING THE CONSTITUTION!
IF A CON CON, ARTICLE V, or CONVENTION OF STATES IS ALLOWED
(all the three same, they keep changing the name to throw us off) WILL DESTROY
OUR CONSTITUTION AND DESTROY OUR COUNTRY PERIOD! ~victoria
The facts and logic are on the side of those who oppose an
Article 5 concon and endorse nullification instead.
The MONEY is on the other side. Soros is one of the backers.
Oh yeah, we KNOW the concon will be good for the middle class, don't we?
NOOOOOOOOT!
[ https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/mark-levin-refuted-keep-the-feds-in-check-with-nullification-not-amendments/
]( https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/mark-levin-refuted-keep-the-feds-in-check-with-nullification-not-amendments/
)
Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with
Nullification, not Amendments! By Publius Huldah
What Mark Levin says in “The Liberty Amendments” in support
of an Article V convention is not true.1
On one side of this controversy are those who want to
restore our Constitution by requiring federal and State officials to obey the
Constitution we have; or by electing ones who will. We show that the Oath of Office at Art. VI,
last clause, requires federal 2 and state officials to support the
Constitution. This requires them to
refuse to submit to – to nullify – acts of the federal government which violate
the Constitution. This is how they
“support” the Constitution!
We note that the Oath of Office requires obedience to the
Constitution alone. The Oath does not require
obedience to persons, to any agency of the federal government, or to any
federal court.
We understand that resistance to tyranny is a natural right
– and it is a duty.
We have read original writings of our Framers and know what
our Framers actually told the States to do when the federal government violates
the Constitution: Nullification of the unlawful act is among the first of the
recommended remedies – not one of which is “amendment of the Constitution”.
3
It is already proved in [ James Madison Rebukes
Nullification Deniers ]( https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/james-madison-rebukes-nullification-deniers/ ), that our Framers endorsed nullification by States of
unconstitutional acts of the federal government. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison summed it
up as follows:
“…when powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a
nullification of the act”4 is “the natural right, which all admit to be a
remedy against insupportable oppression…” 5
The claims of the nullification deniers have been proven to
be false. To persist in those claims –
or to do as Levin seems to do and ignore the remedy of nullification – is intellectually
and morally indefensible. So why don’t
they apologize to the public and recant their errors?
Instead, they continue to tell us that what we need is a
“convention of the States” (which Levin and his mentors insist is provided by
Article V of the Constitution) to propose amendments to the Constitution, and
that this is the only way out.
Yes, they tell us, the only way to deal with a federal
government which consistently ignores and tramples over the Constitution is ….
to amend the Constitution!
Do you see how silly that is?
Levin’s Amendments
Levin starts his book by saying how bad things are and how
the federal government has trampled and mangled the Constitution. Those pages are true. And they serve the purpose of making readers
believe that Levin is “on our side”. And
because of that, many are induced to lay aside their critical thinking skills
and accept on trust what Levin tells them. That is a deadly mistake.
Levin’s amendments actually gut our Constitution. Most increase the powers of the federal
government by making lawful what is now unconstitutional because it is not an
“[ enumerated power ]( https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/congress-enumerated-powers/ )”. Others put a band-aid on a problem without solving the
problem. The amendments pertaining to “overrides” undermine the Constitution as
the Objective Standard of what is lawful and what is not – and substitute
majority vote therefor. 6
A Defective Constitution? Or a Disobedient Federal
Government?
We must distinguish between defects within a Constitution,
and a government’s refusal to obey the Constitution to which it is
subject. These are different problems
calling for different remedies.
There were defects in the Constitution produced by the
Federal Convention of 1787, such as provisions permitting slavery. Provision for amendment must be made to
repair such defects. 7
But our problem now is a disobedient federal government. That calls for different remedies – and our
Framers spelled them out. 3
It is idiotic to assert that you can rein in a federal
government which ignores the Constitution by amending the Constitution! Yet, that is “The Levin Plan”.
Now let us read Article V:
What Article V Really Says
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem
it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call
a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to
all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the
Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three
fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed
by the Congress…” [boldface mine]
Note that Congress “calls” the Convention. The States don’t “call” it – all they can do
is apply to Congress for Congress to call it.
There are many questions about Article V conventions; and
James Madison raised them on two occasions at the [ Federal Convention of 1787
]( https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/article-v/ ): 8
On September 10, Madison remarked on the vagueness of the
term, “call a Convention for the purpose”:
How was a Convention to be formed?
By what rule decide? What the
force of its acts?
On September 15, Madison commented on this again, and said
that difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, etc., which in
constitutional regulations ought to be avoided when possible.
Mr. Madison saw that these questions are not addressed by
Article V. Eagle Forum has also raised
this issue in [ Twenty Questions about a constitutional convention ]( http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2011/pdf/20Questions.pdf ).
But since Congress “calls” it, Congress has the power to
appoint whomsoever they will as delegates;9
and nothing in the Constitution says they can’t do this.
Now note that Art. V provides for two conventions:
The first is the one called by Congress to propose
amendments.
After amendments are proposed, Art. V empowers Congress to
select the mode of ratification: Shall the State Legislatures be the body to
ratify or reject? Or shall each State
convene a convention for the purposes or ratifying or rejecting the proposed
amendments?
The only convention Art. V authorizes States to convene is
one within their respective borders to ratify or reject an amendment proposed
by Congress or by the convention Congress called.
What Levin Claims Article V Says
As you see, Art. V makes no provision for a “state
convention process” where the States control the convention.
Yet Levin makes the bizarre claims (p 16-17) that Art. V
authorizes this “state convention process”; and that the convention called by
Congress pursuant to Art. V is really:
A “creature …of the state legislatures”;
That during ratification of our Constitution, the Founders
always talked about conventions for proposing amendments as representing the
States; and
That the state legislatures determine the method for
selection of their delegates; and the subject matter of the convention.
Does Levin cite any authority for these claims? Words of our Framers, perhaps?
No! He cites an
article written by former law professor, Robert G. Natelson, who Levin says is
an “expert” on this “state convention process” (p16, notes 28 & 29).
[ Here is the article by Natelson ]( http://constitution.i2i.org/files/2012/01/STATE-APP-CONVENTION-METHOD-CooleyLR.pdf
) Levin cites as “authority” for his claims.
Note that:
Natelson announces that he will no longer call what he wants
a “constitutional convention”.
Henceforth, he will call it a “convention for proposing amendments”, an
“Article V Convention”, an “amendments convention” or a “convention of the
states”. 10
Natelson doesn’t cite any authority from our Framers for the
claims Levin regurgitates in his book.
Instead, Natelson cites other law review articles; and
Natelson claims it was “custom” at the time of our Founding
for States to have all these powers in conventions.
Custom?
Natelson’s article is no authority at all. And even if he had proven that the “custom”
at the time of our Framing was for States to have all these powers in
conventions [someone really should have told James Madison about this “custom”];
what is there to make the Congress of today follow this 18th century “custom” when Congress “calls” the convention
under Art. V?
Levin also says he knows Congress’ role in the “state
application process” is minimal and ministerial because:
The Framers and ratifiers adopted this “state convention
process” for the purpose of establishing an alternative to the congressionally
initiated amendment process; and
Alexander Hamilton said so in Federalist Paper No. 85.
Here, Levin commits the logical fallacy of “[ circular
reasoning ]( http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/%7Eshagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm )”: We know, Levin
argues, that Congress’ role in the state application process is “minimal and
ministerial” because the Framers adopted this as an alternative to the method
where Congress proposes the amendments directly. Do you see?
Levin next claims that in Federalist No. 85, Hamilton said,
respecting an Art. V convention, that Congress has “no option”, “will be
obliged”, and that “nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of
that body” (p 16-17).
Levin misrepresents what Hamilton says. In [ Federalist No. 85 ]( http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed85.htm ), Hamilton merely says that Congress must call a
convention when two-thirds of the States apply for it:
“… By the fifth
article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged … on the application of the
legislatures of two thirds of the States … to call a convention for proposing
amendments … The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call
a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that
body. …”
Levin wrongly extends Congress’ lack of discretion on the
issue of “to call or not to call” to what follows the “call”: How the convention is to be formed, the
appointment of delegates, the other
questions raised by Madison on September 10 & 15, 1787, and Eagle
Forum’s Twenty Questions.
I have never seen any of the Framers say that Congress has
no power over what follows Congress’ “call”; and Levin doesn’t produce evidence
that any of them ever did.
Levin misrepresents what happened at the Federal Convention
of 1787.
[ This 4 page chart ]( https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/article-v/
) lays out what really happened at that Convention respecting Article V.
To introduce his discussion of that Convention, Levin makes
the following fanciful claims:
“The Constitution itself provides the means for restoring
self-government and averting societal catastrophe (or, in the case of societal
collapse, resurrecting the civil society) in Article V.” (p 12)
“The fact is that Article V expressly grants state
legislatures significant authority to rebalance the constitutional structure
for the purpose of restoring our founding principles should the federal
government shed its limitations, abandon its original purpose, and grow too
powerful…” (p12-13)
Article V says no such thing! Read it and see.
Levin then quotes Edmund Randolph & George Mason,
delegates to the Convention, as support for his claims respecting the purpose
of Art. V.
But Randolph & Mason wanted a method of amendment
Congress had nothing to do with. This was an issue at the Convention; Randolph
& Mason held the minority view.
The majority view – the one reflected in the ratified
version of Article V – involves Congress in both methods of amendment. Congress either:
Proposes the
amendments; or
“Calls” a convention
when the Legislatures of 2/3 of the States apply for it.
Our Framers’ Concerns about “Conventions”
Now let us examine the “convention for proposing amendments”
which Congress calls pursuant to Art. V; the “runaway” the Federal Convention
of 1787 turned into, and “general conventions”.
We saw that James Madison raised concerns on [ September 10
& 15, 1787 ]( https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/article-v/ ), about Art. V conventions called by Congress, because of
questions respecting how was a Convention to be formed, by what rule, & the
procedures of such conventions.
Yet Levin claims that in Federalist No. 43, Madison shows he
considered an Art. V convention as prudent a method of amendment as having
Congress propose the amendments (p 15).
Madison does not say that in Federalist No. 43! 11
Second, Levin’s claim is contradicted by Madison’s words in
[ his letter of November 2, 1788 to G. L. Turberville ]( http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1937#lf1356-05_mnt081 ) on the same subject.
In his letter to Turberville, Madison speaks, with reference
to modes of originating amendments, of both a “general convention” and an
“Article V Convention”, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, “the
origination of amendments in Congress”.
Madison advises that amendments be originated in Congress –
not in an Art. V Convention, for the various reasons set forth in his letter;
and that:
“2. A [“general”] Convention cannot be called without the
unanimous consent of the parties who are to be bound by it, if first principles
are to be recurred to; or without the previous application of ⅔ of the State
legislatures, if the forms of the Constitution [Art. V] are to be pursued. The
difficulties in either of these cases must evidently be much greater than will
attend the origination of amendments in Congress, which may be done at the
instance of a single State Legislature, or even without a single instruction on
the subject…” [boldface mine]
Do you see? Madison
advises that when States want amendments, they instruct their Congressional
delegation to pursue it. This is the
best way for the States to “originate amendments”!
That is the mode Madison strongly recommended; that is the
mode we have followed. On [ May 5, 1789,
Rep. Bland ]( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=130 ) (pages 258-261) introduced into Congress the petition
from the State of Virginia for an Art. V Convention to propose amendments. But on [ June 8, 1789, Madison ]( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=225 ) (pages 448-460) introduced 12 proposed amendments for
Congress to propose to the State Legislatures.
And [ on September 24, 1789 ]( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=475 ), the House & Senate having agreed on the wording of
the proposed 12 amendments; the House requested the President to transmit them
to the States for ratification.
If we cannot elect to Congress people who will follow the
instructions of their State Legislatures & constituents and propose those
amendments which actually need to be made; how can we trust Congress to “call”
a convention?
And as to another “general” or “runaway” convention, perish
the thought!:
On [ September 15,1787 ]( https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/article-v/ ), in response to Randolph’s & Mason’s demands for
another “general convention”, Mr.
Pinckney pointed out that nothing but confusion and contrariety will spring
from calling forth the deliberations and amendments of the different States, on
the subject of government at large.
States will never agree in their plans; and the deputies to a second
convention, coming together under the discordant impressions of their
constituents, will never agree.
“Conventions are serious things, and ought not to be repeated.”
In [ Federalist No. 85 ]( http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed85.htm ) (9th para), Hamilton spoke of:
“…the utter improbability of assembling a new convention,
under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in
which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded…”
James Madison warned against another general convention in
his [ letter to Turberville ]( http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1937&chapter=118861&layout=html&Itemid=27 ) :
“3… an election into it would be courted by the most violent
partizans on both sides; it … would be the very focus of that flame which has
already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals
of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some
parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous
opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. … it seems scarcely
to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in
harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties
and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every
propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting
in the present temper of America…” [boldface mine]
Do we have “violent partizans”, “individuals of insidious
views”, and any who would exploit an opportunity to sap “the very foundations
of the fabric” today? Yes, we do. They are in Congress, the executive branch,
the federal Courts, “conservative” circles – and they are invading our Country
at a furious rate. And what now is the
“present temper of America”?
Why a “Runaway” Article V Convention is a Real Possibility
and a Grave Danger.
Pursuant to the authority granted by Article XIII of [ The
Articles of Confederation ]( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/rbpe:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28rbpe17802600%29%29 ), the Continental Congress Resolved on [ February 21, 1787
]( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=032/lljc032.db&recNum=80 ) (p 71-74):
“Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient
that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have
been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and
express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to
Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein
as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the
federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the
preservation of the Union.” [boldface mine]
So! The Convention of
1787 was called by the Continental Congress for the “sole and express purpose”
of proposing revisions to the Articles of Confederation.
But the delegates ignored these limitations and wrote a new
Constitution. 12
As to delegates, the Continental Congress expressly directed
the States to appoint the delegates.
But there is no requirement in Art. V of our Constitution
that States be permitted to appoint delegates; and no “custom” from the era of
the Continental Congress can bind the Congress of today.
So if Congress of today were to call an Art. V convention,
Congress would most likely get delegates who would do what Congress wants.
And will Congress appoint Islamists as delegates? La Raza Mexicans? Other special interest groups? How can Congress be prevented from appointing
whomsoever they will?
And if the delegates duly appointed by Congress, and acting
under the Authority of Congress, come up with a new Constitution, will the new
Constitution outlaw Christianity? (Obama
is outlawing it in the military, and Congress isn’t doing a thing about
it). Will it institute Sharia? Will it
disarm the American People? Will it
follow the UN Model where “rights” are privileges granted and withdrawn by the
State? Will it outlaw private property?
And this new Constitution will have its own mode of
ratification. This new mode of
ratification can be whatever the delegates want – a majority vote in Congress,
perhaps?
[ There is no way to stop them from “running away” ]( http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/pdf/WarrenBurger-letter.pdf
) and writing a new Constitution with its own mode of ratification. They can
cram a new Constitution down your throat and you won’t be able to do a thing
about it.
On page 15, Levin commits [ a formal fallacy ]( http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ ) (an argument defective as to form) when he attempts to prove
that an Art. V convention can’t possibly turn into a “runaway”. Here is the
form of his argument:
He was originally skeptical of “the state convention
process” because it could turn into a “runaway”.
Art. V says a proposed amendment has no effect unless
ratified by ¾ of the States.
Therefore, the “state convention process” can’t result in a
“hijack of the Constitution” [“runaway”].
His conclusion (3) is a form of non sequitur – it doesn’t
follow from the premises (1 & 2).
And our concern is not with amendments – those are subject to approval
by three-fourths of the States. Our
concern is that the convention will “runaway” and write a new Constitution with
a new mode of ratification which does not require approval by three-fourths of
the States. Do you see?
Conclusion
Few of us can name even 5 of the enumerated powers of
Congress and 4 of the enumerated powers of the President. Why?
Because we never bothered to learn our Constitution. Alexander Hamilton expected THE PEOPLE to be
“[ the natural guardians of the Constitution ]( http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed16.htm )”. But you can’t
“guard” the Constitution if you don’t trouble yourself to learn it.
Since we never bothered to learn the Constitution, we
elected politicians who also hadn’t bothered to learn it. So they ignored the Constitution when they
assumed office.
This is why, after more than 100 years of electing
politicians who ignore the Constitution, we are now under tyranny and headed
for disaster.
Do we now want a way out which allows us to avoid
confronting our own personal failures as Guardians of the Constitution? When charlatans who “sound good” offer us a
scapegoat, do we jump on it? Do we
chant, “The Constitution is broken! Fix
the Constitution!” And shall we pretend
that we too know all about how to amend a Constitution most of us never
bothered to read?
Our Constitution depended on our knowing our Constitution
and in electing representatives who would obey it – and getting rid of them
when they didn’t.
James Madison said on [ June 20, 1788 at the Virginia
Ratifying Convention ]( http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1937&chapter=118812&layout=html#a_2400442 ):
“…. But I go on this great republican principle, that the
people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is
there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No
theoretical checks—no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that
any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in
the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and
intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these
men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers,
but in the people who are to choose them.”
We are in a “wretched situation” because we lost our
virtue. Renounce handouts and pride in
pretended “knowingness”. Learn the
enumerated powers of Congress and the President. [ This chart will get you started ]( https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chart-showing-federal-structure-3-1-part-a2.pdf
). Learn about [ nullification. ]( https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/james-madison-rebukes-nullification-deniers/
) Form delegations and go to your State
Legislators, educate them and demand they start nullifying unconstitutional
acts of the federal government. [ States
should nullify obamacare ]( https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/now-how-do-we-get-rid-of-obamacare-nullify-it-2/
)! If Legislators aren’t willing to
renounce federal funding, recall or defeat them! PH
Endnotes:
1 We must stop believing whatever we are told. We must demand proof by original source
documents, and think for ourselves.
2 The President’s Oath is set forth at Art. II, §1, last
clause.
3 These are among the remedies our Framers advised when the
federal government usurps power:
►In [ Federalist No. 44 ]( http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed44.htm ) (12th para from end), Madison says elect more faithful
representatives!:
“… In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will
depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and
give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be
obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful
representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers…”
But we keep reelecting the same sorry people because we know
their names and they are in our party.
►States should nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal
government! This is proven with links to original sources in [ James Madison
Rebukes Nullification Deniers. ]( https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/james-madison-rebukes-nullification-deniers/
)
►In [ Federalist No. 46 ]( http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed46.htm ) (last half), Madison shows how individual States or several
States carry out various degrees of resistance to the federal government’s
unconstitutional encroachments. See
also: [ What Should States Do When The Federal Government Usurps Power? ]( https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/what-should-states-do-when-the-federal-government-usurps-power/
)
►In [ Federalist No. 28 ]( http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed28.htm ) (last 5 paras), Hamilton says:
“If the representatives of the people betray their
constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that
original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of
government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be
exerted with infinitely better prospect of success …” [italics mine]
“…The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of
resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the
citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them…”
“It may safely be received as an axiom …that the State
governments will … afford complete security against invasions of the public
liberty by the national authority…. The legislatures … can at once adopt a
regular plan of opposition…”
“…When will the time arrive that the federal government can
raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body
of the people … who are in a situation, through the medium of their State
governments, to take measures for their own defense…”
4 Thomas Jefferson, [ The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 ]( http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=570&Itemid=264 ), 8th Resolution.
5 James Madison, [ Notes on Nullification (1834) ]( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mjmtext:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28jm090163%29%29 ). The quote is near the end. Use “find” function.
6 Later, I will show why Levin’s proposed amendments gut our
Constitution. Meanwhile, you read the
Constitution, learn the [ enumerated powers of Congress ]( https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/congress-enumerated-powers/ ), and see if you can figure out what is wrong with the
proposed amendments. Use your own head
and trust no one.
7 Alexander Hamilton said on [ Sep. 10, 1787 ]( https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/article-v/ ) that an easy mode should be established for fixing
defects which will probably appear in the new system ... the National
Legislature will be the first to perceive, and will be most sensible to, the
necessity of amendments…
8 What happened at the Federal Convention of 1787 respecting
Art. V is laid out in [ this 4 page chart ]( https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/article-v/ ).
9 “Citizens for Self-Governance”, [ headed by ]( http://www.conventionofstates.com/welcome-leadership-team ) the [ Michael Farris ]( http://www.americanclarion.com/22845/2013/07/23/parental-rights-god-given-and-unalienable-or-government-granted-and-revocable/ ) who is pushing the “parental rights amendment, represents
that the “Convention of the States” will soon:
“…[ open the application process for leadership positions
across the country. Consider applying to be a District Captain, Legislative
Liaison, or State Director ]( http://www.conventionofstates.com/how-you-can-help )…”
thereby making the gullible believe that they can be a
“player” in this “Convention of the States”.
10 [ Phyllis Schlafly ]( http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/ ), Kelleigh [ Nelson ]( http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh175.htm ), Henry [ Lamb ]( http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/268253/ ) and others have done such a magnificent job of warning
The People of the dangers of a constitutional convention, that many now
understand that such is likely to result in a new Constitution – with its own
method of ratification – being forced on us.
So! Proponents now
call it by another name: “Convention of the States” or “state convention
process”. Is the purpose of the name
change to deceive you? To make you think it is something “different” from the
Art. V convention Congress calls?
11 In [ Federalist No. 43 ]( http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed43.htm ), Madison comments on Art. V:
“8…That useful alterations will be suggested by experience,
could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for
introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the convention seems
to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that
extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that
extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover,
equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the
amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side,
or on the other…”
12 We were fortunate (except for slavery) with the
Constitution of 1787, even though the Federal Convention was a “runaway”. Look who was there!: George Washington, James Madison, Alexander
Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin; and they weren’t drowned out by
subversives. They would be today. PH
September
15, 2013; revised Dec. 5, 2013; Dec. 31, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment