Our Declaration of Independence (2nd
para) sets forth our long forgotten Founding Principles that:
• All men are created equal.
• Rights come from God.
• People create governments to secure God-given rights. The first three words of our Constitution throw off the European model where political power originates with the State; and establish the new Principle that WE THE PEOPLE are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22, last sentence).
• When a government seeks to take away our God given rights, we have the right to alter, abolish, or throw off that Form of government.
• Rights come from God.
• People create governments to secure God-given rights. The first three words of our Constitution throw off the European model where political power originates with the State; and establish the new Principle that WE THE PEOPLE are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22, last sentence).
• When a government seeks to take away our God given rights, we have the right to alter, abolish, or throw off that Form of government.
These are the Principles which
justified our Revolution against a King.
These are also the Principles which
permit us today to throw off our Form of government by discarding our existing
Constitution and replacing it with another one. This is why the language at
Article V of our Constitution, which authorizes Congress to call a convention
“for proposing amendments”, does not restrict Delegates to merely “proposing
amendments”: Delegates are invested
with that inherent pre-existing sovereign right, recognized in our
Declaration, to abolish our existing Form of government (our Constitution) and
propose a new Constitution.
This has happened once before in our
Country. I’ll show you.
The
Federal Convention of 1787: Federal and State Instructions to Delegates
Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787
(p 71-74) to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia
“for the
sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.
The Continental Congress authorized
each of the then 13 States to appoint Delegates to the convention. Twelve of
the States [1] made laws respecting the appointment of Delegates and
issuing instructions to Delegates. Ten States instructed their Delegates to
propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation; and only two (North
Carolina and New Hampshire) gave instructions which arguably permitted their
Delegates to do more than propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation.[2]
But the Delegates ignored the
federal and State limitations and wrote a new Constitution. Because of this
inherent authority of Delegates, it
is impossible to stop it from happening at another convention.
The Delegates also instituted an
easier mode of ratification. Whereas Article XIII of the Articles of
Confederation required approval of all of the then 13 States before an amendment
could be ratified; Article VII of the
new Constitution provided that only 9 States were required for
ratification of the new Constitution.
Why is an
Article V Convention Dangerous?
So! Do you see?
If we have a convention today, there
is nothing to stop Delegates
from proposing a new Constitution with its own new method of ratification.
New Constitutions are already
prepared and waiting for a convention. Here are three:
• Fifty years ago, the Ford & Rockefeller Foundations
produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. It is ratified by
a referendum called by the President [Art 12, Sec. 1]. If we have a
convention, and Delegates propose the Newstates Constitution, it doesn’t go to
the States for ratification – it goes directly to the President to call a
Referendum. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments
answerable to the new national government. Read the Newstates Constitution and
tremble for your country.
• The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.
• The Constitution 2020 movement is funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law professors and Marxist groups all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder. They want a Marxist Constitution and they want it in place by the year 2020. It further appears that Soros is funding much of the current push for an Article V convention.
• The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.
• The Constitution 2020 movement is funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law professors and Marxist groups all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder. They want a Marxist Constitution and they want it in place by the year 2020. It further appears that Soros is funding much of the current push for an Article V convention.
Warnings
from the Wise
Brilliant men have warned against an Article V convention.
It is immoral to dismiss
their warnings:
• Alexander Hamilton
writes 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…” Federalist No. 85
(9th para)
• James Madison writes in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that an Article V Convention would give “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country. In Federalist No. 49, he shows that the convention method is NOT GOOD to correct breaches of the federal constitution because the People aren’t philosophers – they follow what influential people tell them! And the very legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention so they could control the outcome.
• Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his Sep. 14, 1986 article in The Miami Herald, that at the convention of 1787, the delegates ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, wrote a new Constitution. He warns that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda [of the convention] would almost certainly be unenforceable.”
• Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger warns in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly that “there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention”; “After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda”; and “A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…”
• James Madison writes in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that an Article V Convention would give “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country. In Federalist No. 49, he shows that the convention method is NOT GOOD to correct breaches of the federal constitution because the People aren’t philosophers – they follow what influential people tell them! And the very legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention so they could control the outcome.
• Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his Sep. 14, 1986 article in The Miami Herald, that at the convention of 1787, the delegates ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, wrote a new Constitution. He warns that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda [of the convention] would almost certainly be unenforceable.”
• Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger warns in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly that “there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention”; “After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda”; and “A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…”
Can State
Laws Control Delegates?
Convention supporters say we don’t
have to worry about any of the above because States can make laws controlling
their Delegates.
Really? James Madison, Father of our Constitution and a consistent opponent
of the convention method of proposing amendments, didn’t know that. Two US
Supreme Court Justices didn’t know that. They said there is no effective way to control the Delegates.
But in case you are uncertain as to
who is telling you the Truth – and who isn’t - I will show you how easily State
laws which pretend to control Delegates can be circumvented.
Section 20-C:2I.of the New Hampshire
bill says:
“No delegate from New Hampshire to
the Article V convention shall have the authority to allow consideration,
consider, or approve an unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for
the United States of America.”[italics mine]
Section 20-C:1 V. of the bill
defines “unauthorized amendment” as:
“any amendment outside the scope
permitted by the Article V petition passed by the general court of New
Hampshire”.
What is wrong with this?
• It doesn’t prohibit New Hampshire Delegates from proposing
or approving a new Constitution.
• Article V of the US Constitution provides that Amendments will be proposed at the convention. Any state laws contrary to Article V must fall under the supremacy clause at Article VI, US Constitution.
• New Hampshire Delegates can’t restrict Delegates from other States.
• It ignores the inherent sovereign authority of Delegates to throw off both their State governments and the federal government by proposing a new constitution with whatever new mode of ratification they want. Remember! Under the proposed Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.
• Article V of the US Constitution provides that Amendments will be proposed at the convention. Any state laws contrary to Article V must fall under the supremacy clause at Article VI, US Constitution.
• New Hampshire Delegates can’t restrict Delegates from other States.
• It ignores the inherent sovereign authority of Delegates to throw off both their State governments and the federal government by proposing a new constitution with whatever new mode of ratification they want. Remember! Under the proposed Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.
And if the States already know what
amendments they want, they should tell their State congressional delegations to
propose them in Congress. This is the method James Madison always advised.
Section 20-C:2II. of the New
Hampshire bill says:
“Any vote taken by a delegate from
New Hampshire at the Article V convention in violation of paragraph I of this
section shall be null and void. Any delegate making this vote shall be
immediately disqualified from serving as a delegate to the Article V
convention.”
What is wrong with this?
• What if the Delegates vote to keep their proceedings
secret? At the federal convention on May 29, 1787, our Framers
made rules restricting publications of their proceedings.
• What if the Delegates vote by secret ballot? As long as some vote “for” and others vote “against” every proposition, there is no way to tell who did what.
• What if the Delegates vote by secret ballot? As long as some vote “for” and others vote “against” every proposition, there is no way to tell who did what.
Section 20-C:2III.of the New
Hampshire bill says:
“Every delegate from New Hampshire
to the Article V convention called for by the Article V petition shall be
required to take the following oath:”
“I do solemnly swear or affirm that
to the best of my abilities, I will, as a delegate to the Article V convention,
uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state of New
Hampshire. I will accept and will act according to the limits of the authority
as a delegate granted to me by New Hampshire law, and I will not vote to consider or approve any
unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.
I understand and accept any penalties that may be imposed on me by New
Hampshire law for violating this oath.” [boldface mine]
Does one need to comment on the
efficacy of Oaths of Office in our degenerate times? Article II, §1, last
clause,of our Constitution requires the President to take an Oath to “preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”; and Article VI, last
clause, requires everyone in the federal and State governments to take an oath
to obey the Constitution.
Who today honors his Oath of Office?
Section 20-C:2IV. of the New Hampshire bill says:
“Any delegate who violates the oath
contained in paragraph III of this section shall be subject to the maximum
criminal penalty under RSA 641:2.”
Any criminal defense attorney worth
her salt can figure out how to get around this one:
• As shown above, if the proceedings of the convention are
kept secret, or Delegates vote by secret ballot, one would never know if any
one Delegate violated his oath. Defense counsel would get any attempted
criminal prosecution of any particular Delegate dismissed at a pretrial
hearing.
• Congress can pass a law granting immunity from prosecution to the Delegates.
• The Delegates can insert a clause in the new constitution granting themselves immunity from prosecution.
• If the new constitution abolishes the States, as does the Newstates Constitution, there is no State left to prosecute Delegates.
• The local prosecutor is the one who decides whether he will prosecute any criminal offense under his jurisdiction. Politics are a deciding factor in deciding whether to prosecute. Remember Eric Holder refused to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a polling place?
• Congress can pass a law granting immunity from prosecution to the Delegates.
• The Delegates can insert a clause in the new constitution granting themselves immunity from prosecution.
• If the new constitution abolishes the States, as does the Newstates Constitution, there is no State left to prosecute Delegates.
• The local prosecutor is the one who decides whether he will prosecute any criminal offense under his jurisdiction. Politics are a deciding factor in deciding whether to prosecute. Remember Eric Holder refused to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a polling place?
Do you see? James Madison, Justice
Arthur Goldberg, and Justice Warren Burger were right: It is impossible to restrict the
Delegates.
Everything
to Lose, Nothing to Gain
If there is a convention today,
George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won’t be
there to protect you. Who will the Delegates be? You don’t know. Do you trust them?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah133.htm
Comments
We like the US Constitution (as
written). We do not want to risk having it replaced by the New States
Constitution (written by communists).
Every Communist organization in the world is promoting this Convention
of States. We do not want to call a Convention of States. We want our elected officials to work toward
making the federal government compliant with the US Constitution (as
written). Particularly now, with
Republicans in charge of Congress, we should not need a “balanced budget
amendment” to the US Constitution. We
should be planning to close many federal departments and agencies in order to
“balance the budget” and pay off the debt.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party
Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment