Topic: Article V Convention
Article V and the Tenth Amendment Movement--- A Prequel To An Article V Convention? This article deals with the recent Tenth Amendment resolutions by the states and the part that an Article V Convention plays in all of thisby Bill Walker
(libertarian)
Friday, March 6, 2009
You would have to be living under a rock not to realize the unprecedented constitutional movements happening around this nation today. Pushed by the extreme liberalism and spending programs of the Obama administration, a recession that seems determined to become a depression, an out of control central government violating so many provisions of the Constitution seemingly at once and (finally!) the realization by many in the state legislatures that their sovereignty has been eroded by the avarice of Washington DC, many state legislatures have began to react. Many states are considering state constitutional conventions; others are asserting state sovereignty under Tenth Amendment resolutions intended for presentation to Congress.
In many countries events such as I have just described would be sufficient to cause a civil war to erupt. Thus far, the states have been content to remind the federal government that (1) there is a thing called the Constitution in this country; (2) that Constitution says the states have sovereign rights and (3) the United States government is supposed to obey the Constitution and thus respect the sovereign rights of the states. Frankly, given the overall history of this nation and the actions of the federal government to date, this effort by the states reminds me of closing the barn door not just after the horse has got away but has had time to run into the next state.
What should concern everyone is not that the states are passing these resolutions or even the fact they are considering them. Many of these will not pass the state legislatures. New Hampshire, for example, failed to pass its version of assertion of Tenth Amendment sovereignty in a very close vote taken March 4. Only the most politically foolish or naive however, would assume that given such a close vote, this spells the end of this movement.
What should concern everyone is, given the Obama administration and Congress will not pay one bit of attention to these resolutions, what then? What do the states do then? There are several reasons why the federal government will not heed these resolutions. First, the resolutions take no actual action. They are resolutions, not law. They assert a right of a state to take an action. Until the states act as described by the resolution, nothing will happen. The federal government will not show its hand to something it thinks will happen. Second, the federal government knows that so far this movement has come almost exclusively from the political right, more specifically from the conservative side of the political right. Thus, the federal government can gamble politically that at least half of the states will not join in this movement. Third, the federal government realizes even if the all the states did assert sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, it really means nothing.
The reason for this is neither the Tenth nor the Ninth Amendment, also discussed in recent weeks, actually forces or causes any action on the part of anyone to do anything. True, the amendments in question guarantee rights. However, there is no mechanism of the right, meaning no method exits whereby the right in question is enforceable under the terms of those two amendments. Traditionally, the government is responsible the mechanism of a right. For example, at least two amendments in the Constitution specify the right to vote for all citizens. The amendments assign enforcement of the right to Congress through "appropriate legislation." Hence, the mechanism of the right of the right to vote is assigned to Congress to ensure all citizens enjoy their right to vote. Through this mechanism, the government creates laws to allow for voting, tabulation of voting, and penalties for those who abuse or thwart the vote and so forth. In short, the mechanism of the right is the process whereby the right expressed is actually executed.
But how do you enforce the Tenth Amendment? Where is that mechanism of the right that allows either for the federal government to enforce it, or the states to do likewise? Obviously, the matter cannot be left in the hands of the federal government for it they who are committing the offense, which requires redress. This then leaves the states to redress the imbalance.
How will this be done? For without enforcement, the Tenth Amendment will become another dead letter of our "living" Constitution. I often marvel at how much of our Constitution has become "dead letter" as the liberal concept of a "living" Constitution has developed. It reminds of an attack of black spot on my roses. By the time I've finished trimming all the leaves infested with black spot, I may still have a "living" rose but it's certainly nothing worth while.
Make no mistake, whether or not a single state passes any of these Tenth Amendment resolutions, the states have committed themselves to an action from which there is no turning back. We should most concerned with that course of action by the states. If the states fail to back up their resolutions with real action, the federal government will know the states truly are nothing more than political sub-units of the federal government to be ordered about as servants. They will crush any future concept of state sovereignty as easily as one might pluck a rose from its branch and crush the flower in their hand.
But what action will the states take? Certainly not armed revolt. Not yet anyway. The last time the states asserted nullification of federal laws was 1832. The state of South Carolina led the way that time. President Jackson stopped the nullification movement in 1832. However, the problems that caused South Carolina to act in the first place continued and ultimately, 30 years later resulted in the Civil War. Hopefully history will have taught us something and the issues this nation now faces will be addressed peacefully before these forces become so extreme no other choice is possible but armed conflict.
There is a peaceful alternative in the Constitution. By its use, the nation will know how serious the states are about sovereignty and how serious the federal government is about not obeying the Constitution. That moment will come when one of the states realizes the mechanism of the right expressed in the Tenth Amendment is an Article V Convention. That state will also realize many of the complaints raised in these various resolutions by the states have already been addressed as proposed amendments designed to limit the power of the federal government in applications submitted by the states for a convention. In short, they will realize an Article V Convention is the solution to their problem. At that point, the states will shift from mere assertion of their sovereign rights to the implementation of these rights. Or, at that point, the nation will know for certain, we have a runaway central government bound by nothing but its own power-driven desires as the federal government in spite of direct constitutional language, vetoes the Constitution and refuses to call a convention.
All 50 states have submitted over 700 applications for an Article V Convention and we at FOAVC (www.foavc.org) have been telling the state legislatures about these facts and others about an Article V Convention for some time. Coincidently, this Tenth Amendment movement seemed to begin just about the time we first contacted members of various state legislatures regarding the facts surrounding an Article V Convention. There is no question that through this constitutional method of amendment, the states can reassert their sovereignty. Indeed, it is quite clear the Founders intended a convention to be the limiting mechanism on a federal government that had or would grow out of control. Congress knows fully well that it is obligated to call an Article V Convention. At FOAVC we have copies of nearly all applications the states have submitted to Congress for a convention call. These include copies of the Congressional Record showing summaries of applications submitted by the states. Such things do not happen by accident. Someone in Congress had to request the Congressional Record do such a summary and obviously, it shows Congress is fully capable of tracking, recording and acknowledging the applications by the states for a convention.
In short, the reason we don't have or never have had a convention, is because Congress doesn't want to obey that portion of the Constitution either. Yet another branch of the constitutional rose falls victim to the black spot of federal government avarice.
Of course, there are those shrill voices that keep screaming that an Article V Convention will end life on earth, as we know it. They scream a convention will write a new Constitution like the convention did in 1787. Of course, they ignore the fact that Congress instructed that convention to do just that by telling them to make whatever changes to were necessary to address the issues of the Articles of Confederation. And these critics ignore the fact that there was no way anyone could not know at the time the Constitution was intended to replace the Articles of Confederation. A simple read of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 settles that point: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation..." The same is true if a convention did as these fear mongers say. Any new constitution written would have to state in no uncertain terms it replaced our current Constitution, just as our present Constitution stated it replaced the Articles of Confederation by no longer permitting a confederation of states to exist. Even if a convention presented a new constitution, it would still require ratification under our present system of amendment, meaning ratification by three fourths of the states in public votes. We have nothing to fear however. Article V does not permit either Congress or a convention to write a new constitution in the first place. It states twice that only amendments may be proposed or ratified "as part of this constitution." Moreover, no state has ever offered even as much as one application asking a convention write a new constitution. Without massive state support in the form of ratification, any new constitution would be doomed from the start.
But what these shrill voices of fear want everyone to ignore and what the Tenth Amendment movement shows is that all of the fear they have about a convention taking over the Constitution and "writing" a new one, has already happened by the federal government being allowed to create a "living" Constitution. In short, what they fear a convention might do, the federal government already has done. Only an Article V Convention can reverse this process.
An Article V Convention is the only mechanism of the right of state sovereignty that exists in the Constitution. Through that mechanism, and only through that mechanism, can the states reassert their sovereignty expressed in the Tenth Amendment. The states can bring about changes in our Constitution, which specifically address the excesses the current federal government has created. They have already submitted amendment proposals intended to redress these problems. These proposals include amendments designed to regulate unfunded federal mandates, repeal of federal income tax, initiative, referendum and recall of federal officials, state review of federal court rulings, regulation of the federal budget and other similar amendment proposals.
Those in the state legislatures saw this problem coming years ago and did their duty to protect state sovereignty. They used their constitutional authority to compel Congress to call an Article V Convention and submitted the applications necessary to require Congress to do so. They proposed amendments in these applications intended and designed to curtail the excesses of government. Congress ignored that authority and continues to ignore the Constitution. As a result, we are where we are in this nation. The fact we are here is clearly not the fault of the states or a convention. It is clearly and exclusively the fault of Congress and the federal government.
It is up to us now to complete the work. It is time to bring the needed political pressure on Congress and force them to obey the Constitution. It is time to call an Article V Convention to propose amendments to deal with the issues raised in these Tenth Amendment resolutions. It is time to let the rose bloom again in full splendor.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 17 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Bill Walker only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Bill Walker is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-03-06 01:57:51
I see. So if I'm smart enough to realize that there are real dangers to our liberty associated with Article V conventions (given the current, long-standing, anti-liberty climate in this country), then "what [my] shrill voice of fear wants everyone to ignore and what the Tenth Amendment movement shows is that all of the fear they have about a convention taking over the Constitution and 'writing' a new one, has already happened by the federal government being allowed to create a 'living' Constitution. In short, what they fear a convention might do, the federal government already has done."
Yes, it's true that's what the government has already done, but you fail to answer the most basic question: why should we believe that a minority viewpoint (and let's be brutally honest, true liberty is a minority viewpoint) will suddenly be passed by 3/4 of the states, thereby overcoming what the federal government has already done?
Even more importantly, what makes you think that the majority, anti-liberty viewpoint won't be codified even more solidly into the Constitution by an Article V convention than it already is? After all, as you pointed out, the Constitution was rewritten the way it was because the convention was told to do so. Who would be doing the telling in this case? It would be the very same politicians who have been destroying our liberties in the first place.
Most importantly, you point to the tenth amendment. I suggest that it (along with the ninth) are quite possibly the most important amendments ever written to the Constitution. Yet, how often are they enforced? Never for the ninth, and nearly never for the tenth. So why should we expect that to change just because the politicians authorize an Article V convention?
The answer is that we should not expect it to change. Leopards don't change their spots, no matter how naively you want to believe that they will. Your unwillingness to actually examine the dangers associated with an Article V convention is a dangerous blind spot.
First, all the politicians you refer to are on public record as opposing calling a convention. They are so committed not to having a convention they are willing to risk jail and removal from office to do so. Meanwhile many states and countries are holding or considering holding conventions and nothing has or will happen as you predict with them. There have been over a 1000 conventions held since 1776 most in the United States. None has ever been controlled as you suggest.
You simply have no facts to back up your fears.
Second, there is no blind spot because even if a convention were to propose something that did do as you say, as I point out, and you did not refute in your response, ratification takes care of it. The question is not if the states will support it, but will they ratify an amendment that specifically states, for example, that the second amendment to the constitution is hereby repealed. If they fail to support it, then the liberty will remain as it is.
Next, you obviously have not read the resolutions of these states in this movement. They cite specific issues of conflict which also happen to coincide with applications for specific amendments which in turn resolve the problems in question to the benefit of the states, not the federal government. These applications were submitted years ago before this tenth amendment movement began. Why would the states begin this movement unless they intended to see it through? It is to their own advantage to hold a convention and the sheer volume of applications shows the states have no problem with a convention nor any fear of it.
If we were discussing a total of 35 to 50 applications by the states over the last 200 years, your statements might be valid because that would be a single application from each state, barely enough to cause a convention. When you're talking 730 applications and more still to be posted, an average of over 14 applications a state meaning an application submitted on average from each state every 13 years since this nation began, your statements are obviously invalid.
The fact the federal government will not call a convention despite these numbers is clear. They don't want it because they know it will, by its very existance, restore the balance of liberty in this country you speak of. Why? Because in order for the convention to be held, delegates will have to be elected (and please don't try to convince me otherwise because there are laws and court rulings saying so) and amendment issues of these delegates discussed.
The people will therefore have to take a close, nearly microscopic look at the Constitution and our federal government, something not done since 1787 and they will have to tell delegates how they want those delegates to proceed. If Congress elects to have proposed amendments ratified by convention on legislature, during those elections further instructions will be sent by the people because you can bet in any state legislature election, once a convention is called and the issue of ratification of possible amendments in real, how a state legislator might vote on ratification will be a political subject.
The point is the people will have a chance to decide and direct and more importantly, have the power to direct far beyond a simple election such as is held now. To do that they will have to re-educate themselves as to the Constitution and what this nation stands for and what the Constitution means. In sum, the bosses will be reviewing the job performance of their employee, the federal government and the job performance is likely to be very low.
Even if a convention proposed no amendment and that is certainly possible given the huge number of barriers towards getting an amendment passed, its presence will forever change America to the positive because people will know they CAN change it. They will no longer feel helpless or powerless. And that is always positive.
You speak of a minority. I remind you the entire process of amendment demands consent by the minority. As I've written and stated before, if as few as 700 state legislators object to a proposed amendment (and if those legislators were chairmen of state committees, it could be as few as 13 people), that amendment will not be ratified. I read somewhere there are over 5000 state legislators in this country. That means if 14 percent of them opposed an amendment, it fails. That is a pretty small minority and if the people you speak of including yourself don't make up at least 14 percent of the population, then you don't deserve to win in the first place.
An Article V Constitutional Convention call by the states in order to reign in a rogue federal government is NOT an option as, in today's political environment, the Constitutional baby will most certainly be thrown out with the convention bath water. Contrary to what FOAVC states, convention delegates are unrestrained. Those who push for a Con Con are not without this knowledge. If you weren't aware of this, I'll educate you.
From Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S 9
The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1)
and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state. (2)
They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3)
and, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (4)
and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5)
Citations:
(1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v. Fredericks; 11 So. 472
(2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v. Hill; 14 N.W. 738
(3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v. Jackson; 6 W. Va. 613
(4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v. Autry; 91 p. 193
(5) Texas (1912) Cox v. Robison; 150 S.W. 1149
Furthermore, the most glaring flaw in the pro Con Con position is this. The problems we face in America today stems from the federal government ignoring the Constitution. To think that amending it would make them less likely to ignore it makes no sense at all... it is void of all logic.
I think the timing of your article is in direct response to the publication of mine [link edited for length] . I think you and your pro-Con-Con cohorts see the state of affairs today as creating a favorable environment for your nefarious efforts. I think you see the Act I'm promoting as a dangerous side tracking of your efforts and that's why you've attacked it with inflated claims of "criminal actions". But I'm a Libertarian... I see a commie behind every tree AND bush so I'll let the readers decide.
The fear-mongering about an Article V Convention is totally flawed, because those that oppose it always omit to tell you that it requires 3/4 of all states to ratify any amendment.
Also, the states have already had 679 state constiutional conventions between 1776 and 1917, and none of those were run-away conventions: [link edited for length]
Besides, the law is the law. If people don't like Article V, perhaps they should propose an amendment to have it eliminated. OOOHHHHHHhhhhh . . . but wait. That's right. Congress has chosen to ignore the Constitution. So it's a moot point. Other Constitutional Violations (including Article V): [link edited for length]
Also, consider this economic crisis today caused by a gargantuan debt-bubble.
Just imagine if Congress had not vioated Article V for many decades, and had not ignored the 34+ states that filed over 100 BALANCED BUDGET Amendments (mostly in the 1960s and 1970s; just about the time fiscal insanity began), and the states had been allowed to ratify a BALANCED BUDGET amendment, then perhaps the federal government would not be swimming in $10.9 Trillion of National Debt (not to mention the other $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching).
Perhaps Congress wouldn't have recently given itself its 10th raise in 12 years and $93,000 per Congress person, while U.S. Troops risk life and limb, go without armor, go without adequate medical care, go without promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, 4+ tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan?
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
____________ AF Vet Dan wrote: The problems we face in America today stems from the federal government ignoring the Constitution. ____________
Yes, the federal government is ignoring Article V of the U.S. Constitution. [link edited for length]
It is also ignoring many other laws (e.g. immigration laws, SEC violations, etc.). And it is violating some laws too (e.g. eminent domain abuse).
However, the problems we face today are not solely the fault of government. Voters are culpable too, and repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, incompetent, FOR-SALE, and corrupt politiciains with 85%-to-90% re-election rates ([link edited for length]), despite voters' dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress makes no sense, and voters will reap what they sow, and things are not likely to improve until the painful consequences of the majority of the voters' irresponsibility has become too painful.
____________ AF Vet Dan wrote: To think that amending it would make them less likely to ignore it makes no sense at all... it is void of all logic. ____________ That's true. The "ignoring" is a problem. However, does not justify continued "ignroing" does it? Also, many that want the Constitution obeyed want it largely so that more and more parts of the Constitution don't become ignored too. And the case above about the BALANCED BUDGET Amendment ([link edited for length]) also makes a very strong case that some amendments are needed.
Besides, your comment appears to be advocating that the continued ignoring of the U.S. Constitution. What is logical about that, when you just stated that a large part of the problem is the Constitution being ignored?
Regarding legal cases, the Supreme Court and other courts have already (many times) dealt with cases in interpreting the Constitution (including Article V) and its provisions:
#01 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.”
#02 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Words of [the] Constitution are to be taken in natural and obvious sense, and not in sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged.”
#03 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Where the text of the constitution is "clear and distinct", no restriction on its plain and obvious import should be admitted unless the inference is irresistible.”
#04 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “The government of the United States can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution.”
#05 Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827): “Where provision in United States Constitution is unambiguous and its meaning is entirely free from doubt, the intention of the framers of the constitution cannot be inquired into, and the supreme court is bound to give the provision full operation, whatever might be the views entertained of its expediency.”
#06 Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842): “[The] Court may not construe Constitution so as to defeat its obvious ends when another construction, equally accordant with the words and sense thereof, will enforce and protect them.”
#07 Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855): “The departments of the government are legislative, executive and judicial. They are coordinate in degree to the extent of the powers delegated to each of them. Each, in the exercise of its powers, is independent of the other, but all, right-fully done by either, is binding upon the others. The constitution is supreme over all of them, because the people who ratified it have made it so; consequently, any thing which may be done unauthorized by it is unlawful. … It is supreme over the people of the United States, aggregately and in their separate sovereignties, because they have excluded themselves from any direct or immediate agency in making amendments to it, and have directed that amendments should be made representatively for them, by the congress of the United States, when two thirds of both houses shall propose them; or where the legislatures of two thirds of the several States shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, be-come valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three fourths of them, as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by congress.”
#08 Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580 (1880): “A constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose, but rather so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it was aimed.”
#09 Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): “The framers of the Constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of new conditions require changes, and they intended to provide an orderly manner in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article. This article makes provision for the proposal of amendments either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states; thus securing deliberation and consideration before any change can be proposed. … The fifth article is a grant of authority by the people to Congress. The determination of the method of ratification is the exercise of a national power specifically granted by the Constitution; that power is conferred upon Congress, and is limited to two methods, by the action of the Legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or conventions in a like number of states. The framers of the Constitution might have adopted a different method. Ratification might have been left to a vote of the people, or to some authority of government other than that selected. The language of the article is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”
#10 Dillon v. Gloss 256 U.S. 368 (1921), the Court reaffirmed its previous interpretations of Article V saying: “An examination of article 5 discloses that it is intended to invest Congress with a wide range of power in proposing amendments. Passing a provision long since it expired subjects this power to only two restrictions: one that the proposal shall have the approval of two-thirds of both houses, and the other excluding any amendment which will deprive any state, without its consent, of its equal suffrage in the senate. A further mode of proposal—as yet never invoked—is provided, which is, that on the application of two thirds of the states Congress shall call a convention for the purpose.”
#11 United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true. It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them.”
#12 U.S. v Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): “Where intention of words and phrases used in Constitution is clear, there is no room for construction [re-interpretation] and no excuse for interpolation.”
#13 Wright v. U.S., 302 U.S. 583 (1938): “In expounding the Constitution, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning.”
#14 U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941): “Where there are several possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that meaning which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose cannot rightly be preferred.”
#15 Ullmann v. U.S., 350 U.S. 422 (1956): “Nothing new can be put into the constitution except through the amendatory process, and nothing old can be taken out without the same process”.
#16 Ullmann v. U.S., 350 U.S. 422 (1956): “As no constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer subordination or deletion.”
I like debating this subject, because those that attempt to argue for the continued ignoring of the Constitution (e.g. Article V), about the dangers of enforcing the Constitution, or the real meaning of Article V, always dig themselves into a very deep hole, and then silently disappear with no admission that their case was very weak, if not totally lame.
d.a.n. wrote: "The fear-mongering about an Article V Convention is totally flawed, because those that oppose it always omit to tell you that it requires 3/4 of all states to ratify any amendment."
Because the delegates' powers are unrestrained, they can create new ratification requirements. This occurred in the only Con Con this nation has ever seen - when the Articles of Confederation were tossed out in favor of the new constitution drafted by the delegates and ratified according to the NEW ratification procedure contained within the NEW constitution.
On your assertion that Congress is ignoring the hundreds of state calls for a Con Con... balderdash, propaganda, etc. "Sine die" Resolutions die at the end of the session and have to be passed again in the new session. You're going back to the 1700s to total the number of state con con calls you assert. Silliness.
The rest of your diatribe isn't worth responding to.
I'm sorry for sounding trite, but I cannot imagine that anyone who gives this issue more than an initial glance won't immediately and firmly conclude that an Article V Convention is very dangerous and would do nothing to solve the problems our nation faces. Therefore, I can only conclude that those who continuously bang on this broken drum have more nefarious motives. That makes you my enemy - and I don't use that term lightly.
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: 2009-03-07 16:46:31
To USA Vet Dan: I find your intellectual skills sorely lacking. I continue to be amazed at people who proclaim themselves to be patriotic Americans unwilling to honor the Constitution by insisting that Congress obeys it. I suggest you give very serious thought to this indisputable fact: over many decades ALL established political forces on the left and right have OPPOSED an Article V convention. When the power elites, those firmly controlling the two-party plutocracy oppose something so significant as a constitutional route to correct the failures of the federal government, then that tells me we should passionately support and demand an Article V convention. Would really good, reform amendments get proposed and ratified? Maybe not, but just having a convention could do much to inform, educate and inspire many Americans to better protect their country and rights.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2009-03-08 00:13:56
reading walt's and vet dan's replies, i can only conclude some type of brainwashing is going on in this country. with all facts we clearly know to be true today, no more than an initial glance at the convention clause is needed to recognize how unpleasent it would be for politicians and the forces which fund their campaigns.
as joel points out, if the establishment from left to right has opposed this thing for decades on end, and we are now where we are as a nation, how can anyone be against it? not only as a simple, rudimentary procedure to open discussion outside the limits set by politicians and the msm, but as the most profound principle of the constitution itself: the right to alter or abolish.
anti-conventionists are advocating against the right of the people to alter or abolish.
there has to be some sort of brainwashing going on, just no way a 200+ year old heritage of liberty can be denied in this manner, at this time, by so-called "patriots."
Let's see... we have Joel, d.a.n., Bill, and John. Yup... the entire pro-con-con movement showed up.
Let's start with Joel whose very first line was to insult me... attacking my intellect. I guess if Joel had something of substance to say, he wouldn't have had to start his comment in that manner. He goes on to serve the same garbage that conveniently ignores the facts. For example, his lament that Congress isn't following the Constitution by invoking a con con ignores the fact that not enough states have STANDING con-con calls. No, Joel and his little posse like to count all the con-con calls going as far back to the 1700s... ignoring "Sine Die" - that resolutions die after the end of the session.
In a quantum leap away from logic, he goes on to admit that a con con won't necessarily create good amendments, but that we should push for a con con just because the Elite have, thus far, opposed it. Now there's a fine reason to risk destroying the Constitution! (eyes rolling)
John says, "...with all facts we clearly know to be true today, no more than an initial glance at the convention clause is needed to recognize how unpleasent it would be for politicians and the forces which fund their campaigns". Why would it be unpleasant for the Elite puppets to stack the con con delegate deck so they could destroy the Constitution? They aren't afraid of a con con, they just don't need it. Why openly and publicly destroy that which you can merely and quietly ignore - which is what has been going on in this country for decades.
John goes on to say, "anti-conventionists are advocating against the right of the people to alter or abolish". John, you and your three cohorts are the only people on the planet who believe "the people" would be allowed within a mile of the con con process.
I'll give you all some credit... you're a tenacious little gang.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-03-09 08:57:27
Hi Bill,
I've read volumes from folks who are rabid advocates of an immediate Article V Convention. I've read the reference links and everything else I could get on the topic. The sum of which can be found in comments accompanying this article of yours as well as the other articles on this topice posted at Nolan Chart Dot Com.
To date, the one thing that makes me suspicious of the whole lot of you is the topic Walt and/or I always bring up in these comments. That being the absolutist, blind-faith that proponents of liberty will be successful in promoting ideals into a new constitution than they ever have been at promoting them in our communities and our state and federal governments.
I can understand being optimistic, I can understand making reasonable assessment of the pros and cons then describing how that assessment process leads you to support of the AVC. I can only regard with suspicion what actually is happening. No analysis of risks. No debate over pros and cons. No strategy to mitigate risks. Nothing reasonable or rational at all is ever presented in an attempt to convince the public that a convention can lead to increased liberty. I smell a rat based on that simple observation.
Read the comments associated with this article for example after example of:
Personal attacks on those who dare mention the obvious risks.
Inability (or a deliberate and unified unwillingness) to distinguish between two separate and separately important issues:
- The constitutional process (To AVC or not To AVC is not the question but a distraction for the real question.)
- The likely outcome of that process with regard to liberty.. (This is the real question, the only relevant question and the question the blind-faithful Advocates avoid like the plague.)
The most common tactic of the blind-faithful AVC supporters is to ignorantly imply that if you question the possible outcome you are questioning the Constitution itself and being unpatriotic. This coming from supposedly liberty-loving individuals is no more acceptable than when it comes from collectivists and authoritarians.
Until the advocates of AVC can address the cons rather than pretending they don't exist, I can only assume they have something to hide. That means to me that they do not believe their own rhetoric. That means to me they intend to use the AVC to secure more power for the State and to promote their collectivist views in the convention. They appear to be wolves in sheep's clothing to me. I fear for my liberty when these wolves use their liberal fangs and teeth to tear our constitution asunder.
USAF Vet Dan who doesn't have the courage to even tell people his real name, you've made statements. Now back them up. There are 730 applications or more from all 50 states in the public record for an Article V Convention. You state "not enough states have STANDING con-con calls." and then continue "[i]gnoring '"Sine Die"'-that resoulutions ies after the end of the session."
The Constitution requires that two-thirds of the states apply for a convention in order to cause Congress to call one. The first set that caused that was from 1899 to 1911. There was a total of 31 states that applied which satisifed the Constituiton as there were only 46 states in the union in 1911. Sorry we're going back so far but when you're trying to accurate and complete, sometimes you just gotta do that. Since that time the states have submitted hundreds more applications.
Now you state all of these applications, 697 in all, contain the language that they are "sine die" and thus end at the end of the session. That's the number you have to show are "sin die." For everyone's information, most applications state they are "ongoing" applications. Now I'm not going to point out that Article V does not discuss nor even imply such a standard and that the Supreme Court has stated this at least twice, I'm just going to make you prove your point with evidence. I'm going to defeat you like I do everytime we meet: prove your points with hard evidence anyone can examine.
List the applications you are talking about. Quote the language in the application that says it is "sin die". Remember, I processed those applications meaning I've read everyone one of them. None say they are "sin die" and the reason is obvious. The states realize the application might have to be around for a while before other states apply so they didn't make them "sin die" and even if they did Article V doesn't recognize that because that would allow the state the right to veto the Constitution. As admitted by the government before the Supreme Court, the basis of counting the applications, as they are all for a convention call, is a simple numeric count of applying states and so it is the fact the state applies, not any content of the application, that matters. hence, the moment the state sends the application to Congress, it counts as an application for a convention call and this is instant so it doesn't matter whether or not any language in it making it "sin die" or whatever. ARTICLE V CONTAINS NO LANGUAGE ALLOWING FOR REPEAL OF ANY APPLICATION BY THE STATES ONCE SUBMITTED UNDER ANY TERM OR CIRCUMSTANCE WHATSOEVER. This fact was admitted for the public record by the federal government before the Supreme Court in 2006. There are no terms or conditions whatsoever except a numeric count of applying states.
I repeat. You've made a statement. Now back it up or, as usual, will you slide away not to be heard from again. We'll see. I point out to all reading this: this guy and I have tangled before and not one, I repeat, not once has he ever backed up his statements with evidence when I've challenged him to do so. Now remember FOAVC has the applications to be read. All he has to do is refer to them by either number or whatever he wants and give us a list of 697 applications and his point is proved. It shouldn't take more than an hour or so to do that, if that long.
Next point. The elites of Congress are now on public record about opposing a convention and that is a federal crime. They can no longer hide and everyone knows it.
Final point. You say myself, John, Joel and d.a.n. are the only ones in the "pro con-con movement." Again I challenge you to back that statement up. Better start however with the over 50 nations who have held conventions around the world this last century not to mention the seven or eight now who are holding conventions. While your at it, how do you explain the numerous conventions either going on in this country at the state level, in the planning stages or being discussed at the state levels.
Then you ignore the most obvious fact: the states that have applied for an Article V Convention. All 50 state legislatures, repeatedly, an average of 14 applications, one every 13 years since our nation was founded.
Then there is the hundreds of emails and other actions by FOAVC members and people aligned with our cause you never even heard about. True, we may be the most vocal at this site but hundreds, if not thousands of others, have expressed their support on the Internet and other locations.
The only four people? USAF Vet Dan you don't know what you're talking about which is why Joel attacked your intellect. By the way how's your illegal income tax scheme you proposed in your own column going? Got any massive support for it once I exposed you were proposing an illegal income tax scheme by posting a reply to it? Anyone reading this: this is what USAF Vet Dan is really. He is so intellectually deprived he doesn't even know he was suggesting people engage in a criminal act.
For anyone who wants to know, this is what FOAVC faces in its opposition: people like USAF Vet Dan that don't know what they are talking about,. People like USAF Vet Dan, who won't even use his real name, who cite state laws and court rulings to discuss a federal power and federal court rulings. The citations he uses are totally worthless because anyone knows state law does not effect federal law. In short, USAF Vet Dan represents a very, very, very small group of extreme rightists who make wild assertions without any backup or proof. And if you've read my other columns where I expose these people for the liars they are, you know you can't believe a thing they say. Now watch carefully what happens. I've challenged him directly to prove his statements. He'll either slip and slither by my challenge with some retort but never provide the evidence I challenged him to produced or he won't come back at all.
Either way, my point will be proved. He can't prove his points when challenged because he has no evidence to do so. FOAVC does. Come to our site at www.foavc.org. Read the 700+ applications from all 50 states. Learn the truth.
Your whole assumption is based on the idea there will be a new Constitution. You prove to all you can't read. Article V clearly states (twice) amendments can only be proposed to "as part of this Constitution."
In short, neither a convention nor Congress can propose or create a new Constitution. As your main concern is proved false, there is no reason to say any more. You don't know what you're talking about and the evidence FOAVC has produced has proved it.
I mean think about it: If the states really thought an Article V Convention was such a threat do you really think they' apply for it 730 times? Even Justice Burger didn't think it was a threat and said so. Just read my columns on his true public statements.
First of all, let me say that I concur with everything Jahfre Fire Eater said. He has articulately described the points the pro-con-con cons never address, as well as their tactics to discredit those who point out the glaring holes in the cons' arguments. More importantly, he has pointed out that the con-con cons' tactics are strong indicators that they have other motives which are contrary to the protection of our Constitution and the Republic it defines.
Moving on to address Bill Walker's points.
As to my real name. Anyone who reads my column has seen my real name a number of times... especially in those articles that address my candidacy for Congress. Beyond that, using a pen name doesn't detract from the validity of the information I present. Attacking me for using a pen name is just childish. Grow up, Bill.
On the issue of "Sine Die". State calls for a federal con-con are issued via a Resolution generated either from the state house or senate. The very nature of a resolution is that it stands for as long as the house and/or senate is in session. The con-con call therefore is no longer valid when the session ends. You yourself said, "All 50 state legislatures, repeatedly, an average of 14 applications, one every 13 years since our nation was founded." If these con-con calls stood perpetually, why would they keep reapplying?
You say we opponents of the con duck the points you make but we arduously address them ad naseum. But when we provide evidence that, for example, the convention can make new ratification procedures, that con delegates'"power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature" and can, "not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution", you conveniently ignore these points and revert back to transparent personal attacks.
You also accuse me of promoting "criminal acts". Since when is promoting a piece of state legislation a "criminal act"? I guess you hope the readers will not catch that. Most will see through it, however, which is why no con-con has been called (thank God!).
And finally you claim that Justice Burger "didn't think it was a threat and said so". Here is a letter from him that proves you are lying through your teeth. By the way, not only does the letter prove he considered a con con a threat, but he also debunks your assertion that a state cannot rescind its call. Here is a link to the letter below. [link edited for length]
____________________________________
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20543
June 22, 1983
Chambers of Chief Justice Burger Retired
Dear Phyllis:
I am glad to respond to your inquiry about a proposed Article V Constitutional Convention. I have been asked questions about this topic many times during my news conferences and at college meetings since I became chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, and I have repeatedly replied that such a convention would be a grand waste of time.
I have also repeatedly given my opinion that 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."
With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.
Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a "miracle." Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention. In these bicentennial years, we should be celebrating its long life, not challenging its very existence. Whatever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments.
Let me point out that the tactics of Fire Eater and USAF Dan are based on a pack of lies and I will prove this in this reply.
As to your real name. You say you ran for Congress. That means you were prepared to take an oath of office to "support" the Constitution including calling an Article V Convention. Yet you clearly oppose obeying the Constitution and calling one. Good thing you didn't get elected. You'd be looking at a prison term. By the way you still haven't told us your name.
Your legal opinion on sine die is totally bogus. You ignore the fact that when the resolution passes it may be by state legislature but when it is submitted to Congress it becomes a federal matter under the terms of Article V. Thus any state laws no longer apply. You can read Hawke v Smith 253 U.S. 221 (1920) if you want to read up on what the Supreme Court has said on this principle regarding Article V. As to why the states keep reapplying, it's because Congress doesn't obey the Constitution and the states want a convention.
Now, as to your next point. I'm going to say this with no rancor whatsoever. Article V refutes you on your point period. The Supreme Court has refuted you on at least four cases period. It has also ruled numerous times that only by amendment can the Constitution be changed meaning no one, including delegates to a convention, have the power you suggest. The reason is because Article V is not about a constitutional convention but a "convention to propose amendments" a totally different body.
You refuse to realize or acknowledge something else everyone, the states, the Congress itself, the courts all realize and acknowledge: Article V does not address a constitutional convention. Your assertion using your tired old quote is only used by you. I've never heard anyone else, not an opponent, not a supporter, not anyone but you use the quotes you've cited. Don't you think if they were valid others would be using them? That fact alone explains why we don't repeat our words over and over again because we've proven our point to the satisfaction of everyone except an extreme minority to which you belong. Just because you quote a book that no one else uses or cites, doesn't make it so. Indeed, the fact no one else uses it pretty much proves your argument is bogus.
And you wanted to run for Congress? Given your legal expertise I can guess why people have or will reject you in your district.
As to criminal acts. It is a criminal act to seize lawfully dedicated federal tax funds and hold them. It's called stealing. Now if you want to prove me wrong, why don't you go out to your neighbor's house or a bunch of houses and take thier IRS checks, assuming they owe money, and hold onto them like you suggest. Then call the IRS and tell them you have the money. If I'm right, you'll be arrested. If I'm wrong, nothing will happen and you'll be proved right. Let me know how things go and by the way be sure to send me your new address from federal prison. We can exchange emails while you're doing time. The same identical principle holds true if state legislators tried this stunt. They'd be arrested just as fast.
Now as to the Burger Letter you sent. It is a phoney and it shows just how dumb you really are. There are many problems with the letter that I pointed out in two of my columns which you obviously didn't read. I'll just point out the most obvious.
The letter is dated June 22, 1983. It shows Burger as "retired" Fact: (and you can check this easily by going to the Supreme Court website) Burger was Chief Justice from 1969 to 1986. He was not retired in 1983. Like I said the letter is a phoney. And if you go to my column about the Burger letter you'll read the pdf file showing the news story quoting Burger like I said.
Now, to all those reading this. Do you really place any stock in anyone who is so obviously ignorant of what he talks about that he uses phoney evidence to prove his point? Enough said.
Final point. Did anyone notice exactly what I said about USAF Vet Dan was proven? His reply totally ignored my legitimate request for him to provide evidence and proof of his allegations about "Sine Die" in the applications. He never has and he never will.
If your arguments held water, we'd have had a con-con by now. You claim that the anti-constitutionists are against the con-con but that is incorrect. Take, for example, the Rockefeller founded Council of State Governments, American Legislative Exchange Council, National Taxpayers' Union, Republican National Committee and most notably the Committee on the Constitutional System... all are phony conservative organizations created to lead good patriotic Americans over the cliff and they all are rabid supporters of the con.
The Burger letter you claim is phony is not - the date inconsistency is a typo from when it was transcribed from its hard copy. Phyllis Schlafly has the original dated 1986 - the year he retired.
You sidetrack the points you cannot defend by using transparent tricks like attacking my use of a pen name, my intellect, the color of my socks. Even when someone answers your question completely, you accuse them of ignoring it. Take the Sine Die issue for example. You rant to me for proof that Sine Die exists. I don't need to prove that the sun comes up in the morning - it just does. I didn't make up Sine Die - it is just how resolutions are treated... they die at the end of the session. I don't need to spend a half a day digging through the rules of legislative protocol to prove that. Again I ask... if Sine Die didn't apply and resolutions stood in perpetuity, then why have states made hundreds and hundreds of con con call resolutions over the past several centuries?
These and many more similar tactics are just all slight of hand BS designed to detract from two main indefensible flaws in the pro-con-con con.
1. A con con can completely destroy / replace the Constitution because the con con delegates' powers are unlimited.
2. Any reasonable person today believes that, if the con con Pandora's box is opened, the powers that are primarily responsible for the usurpation of the Constitution will be the powers controlling the con con process and outcome.
All the rest of your rant is silly... laughable really - especially your accusation of promoting "criminal" actions. It would all be very funny if it weren't for the fact that your goal is to destroy the Constitution. Remember, I'm a decorated vet who swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That makes you my enemy. I'll leave it at that.
Vet Dan, you are now really showing how illogical you are. You say "anti-constitutionists" are against the convention but that is incorrect. By definition if someone is anti-constitutional they oppose a constitution and obedience to it. Again you make wild accusations with no proof. Where are your website links to statements of policy and so forth by these groups? Some of these groups have supported proposing amendments to the Constitution, that is true. But only in your mind could it be understood that if someone wants to amend the Constitution, that is somehow being anti-constitutional.
I wonder what you would have said to all this in 1865 if you had lived then? Would you have opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments because that would have changed the Constitution? To be consistent with your argument, you obviously would have opposed any amendment to the Constitution as "anti-constitutionalist" including the first ten amendments. It is obvious that to you anyone who wants to amend the Constitution and use a perfectly legal, constitutional way to do it, is somehow transformed into a threat. Why? Because you don't politically agree with what they propose and instead of attacking the proposal, you attack the method of amendment.
As to the Burger Letter. If you check Schlafly's site, the letter now magically says it was written in 1988. You say it was written in 1986. You produce a letter which is dated in 1983. Now if this was the only error in the letter, maybe you convince everyone that it is real. However, and again this shows how really, really uneducated you are--if you had bothered to read my two columns on the Burger Letter you'd find a huge number of questions about it, specifically that Burger said for the public record the convention was no threat and it would not remove rights enjoyed by Americans.
I notice you don't refute that statement with evidence to the contrary because, of course, you can't. Also, for anyone reading this--please notice (again) no proof regarding the fact the applications from the states are sine die. And again, all one has to do is read the applications. They clearly state they are continuing resolutions meaning the legislature lifted its own rules of sine die. And again note the slick trick Vet Dan tries to use just as I said. He tries to shift the focus from what he originally said (the applications are all void because the legislative sessions ended because of sine die) to now a discussion of sine die itself. No. It is not going to work, Vet Dan. Prove the applications are effected by Sine Die. That's what I asked you prove and again, as always, no evidence, no proof. Just like I said. And let's get it straight. I didn't ask you to go through any legislative rules. All you had to do was go to our website, find the languages in the applications and quote them.
I'll answer your question as to why so many applications. First, because they can. Second, because if you had read them you'll see the states wanted more than just a single amendment issue as an agenda before a convention. Political movements come and go. As they do amendment issues related to them were proposed. Because Congress hasn't obeyed the Constitution they've been allowed to "pile up" and hence the overwhelming number of applications all of which are still valid, still in effect and which force Congress to issue a convention call because, if you read the Constitution, that is the purpose of the application, to cause a convention call. "On the application of two-thirds of the state legislatures [Congress] shall call a convention to propose amendments...."
In short, the reason is because Congress hasn't obeyed the Constitution and called a convention, on in this case, conventions when it was required to.
As to your numeric statements: back them up with evidence OTHER than your always used, never cited by anyone else, citations. I'd place a lot more credience in what you say if anyone else used your citations. And remember, I filed the first two federal lawsuits in U.S. history regarding a convention call and not even the federal government used what you cited and they get paid to win cases. Doesn't it follow that if your citations were at all valid they'd have used them and cited the arguments you present in order to win you case? The fact is they didn't and nobody else uses them either.
Answer me this: if the delegate power is so unlimited, why is it you can't cite one example of it? There have been hundreds of conventions held in the states and hundreds more around the world. There is not one example of "unlimited" delegate power as you describe, not even with the 1787 convention. And yes, I can back that statement up with evidence. Remember the convention came together as a result of a convention call by Congress. Its actions were reviewed no less than twice (many times that if you count the ratification votes in each state) before its proposal actually took effect and clearly the recommendations could have been rejected. That's hardly an example of "unlimited" power.
The powers controlling the "con con" process will be the ones primarly responsible for the usurpation of the Constitution. B.S. The Constitution is being usurped by the federal government. The Constitution itself states none of these people can remain in power and be delegates to a convention. The states would pay for and be responsible for the election of delegates none of whom could hold federal office other than that of delegate. The convention would be an extraordinary public event entirely issue oriented and every action of every delegate would be scrutized. The Congress, according to the Constitution, would have no authority to change any amendment proposal and it would be the states, not the federal government, that would ratify the proposals. Given that those who are usurping the Constitution would have nothing to do with it, how do you figure they would "control" it? And by the way, I'm not guessing here. Remember there have been nearly a 1000 conventions and this is how it works.
As to the criminal, there is nothing laughable about what you propose. You propose to intercept people's money who have choosen to pay their federal income taxes as required by federal law and hold it. Be that done by a state or an individual, that is stealing and it is against the law. And nothing you can say can alter that.
When your country is in $12 Trillion worth of debt, not to mention the trillions of dollars of interest we will pay on that, with Congress whether Republicans or Democrats, whether recession or boom, growing the national debt year after year with no end in sight...How could you possibly be against an Article V Convention, if you in fact support the Constitution and atleast its first 10 amendments?? Are you waiting for something better, like a meteor to strike Washington DC...Because the only other option is Secession.
QUESTION: Why don't the states take the matter to the Supreme Court to force the Congress to call a convention. Afterall, their is no way the Supreme Court could spin Article V to deny the states their rights. If Congress is ignoring their requests, this seems like the obvious step.
There have been two lawsuits filed in federal court. Neither was done by the states. You can read the details about them at www.foavc.org FAQ question 9.1.
To sum the decision of the court, under the political question doctrine the Congress may veto the Constitution and refuse to call an Article V Convention. USAF Dan will probably be jumping for joy when he reads this but it is a fact. For the first time in United States history the courts officially ruled as a matter of government policy that the government may veto the Constitution. The matter went to the Supreme Court where the court, by not taking the case, agreed with a lower court on this statement. Further the government conceeded that to do this was a violation of federal criminal law by the members of Congress to do this. In short, the government may veto the Constituiton but commits a crime when it does so.
Would the courts rule differently if a state brought suit? Possibly. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court would have to hear the case and therefore standing would not be an issue. However to date no state has brought such a suit even though they were asked during the time of the two lawsuits referred to above.
The problem is however that now that the courts have given the government the right to veto the Constitution and as the court power is based on the Constitution which the courts have said the government may veto, it is possible Congress will simply obey the court order already made by the court and refuse to obey any new order countermanding the original order.
Personally I believe the fact that all 50 states have applied over 700 times for a convention would have a major impact on the court and that it would find favorably to the states and overturn the current ruling which of course the government has used since to void, veto and generally ignore other provisions of the Constitution. I also believe once confronted the Congress will back down on this and call a convention. I base this on my experience with the government when the lawsuits were filed and how members of Congress act when they have been confronted since that time.
I also believe as I wrote in this column that the efforts by the states regarding the Tenth Amendment may simply be no more than a prelude to them using Article V and its convention clause to deal with the issues they have raised in their resolutions.
"Vet Dan, you are now really showing how illogical you are. You say "anti-constitutionists" are against the convention but that is incorrect.... But only in your mind could it be understood that if someone wants to amend the Constitution, that is somehow being anti-constitutional."
The groups I mentioned are enemies of the Constitution... they are not interested in amending it, they wish to destroy it. For example, the Rockefeller Foundation founded Council of State Governments which worked closely with the CSDI (Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions - established and funded by the Ford Foundation – which drafted a new constitution for America. This model constitution, drawing upon the efforts of more than 100 people, took ten years to write. The 40th draft was published in a book titled The Emerging Constitution, by Rexford G. Tugwell (Harper & Row, 1974). The project cost $2.5 million per year and produced the Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America.
I believe most con-con cons are proponents of such treasonous schemes. Are you one of them, Bill? Do you want to replace our Constitution with some Elite-sponsored piece of crap???
As tempted as I am to stoop to your level, I'll resist the urge to attack your lack of cognitive ability demonstrated by your accusation that I "obviously would have opposed any amendment to the Constitution". I have no problem with amending the Constitution... just not via a con-con for all the reasons I've stated (i.e., C.J.S. 16).
"It is obvious that to you anyone who wants to amend the Constitution and use a perfectly legal, constitutional way to do it, is somehow transformed into a threat. Why? Because you don't politically agree with what they propose and instead of attacking the proposal, you attack the method of amendment. "
Your statement makes no sense at all. Who is "they" and what is it that "they propose"??? At no time in this whole thread was any issue of contention discussion. Again you attempt to obfuscate the discussion in an attempt to avoid the gaping holes in your argument. ...a dishonorable tactic at which you are not proficient enough to properly execute.
"Answer me this: if the delegate power is so unlimited, why is it you can't cite one example of it?" Yes I can.
In 1787 the founders had convinced the people a Conference of States should be held for the purpose of "making some changes" in the Articles of Confederation. The delegates to the Conference in Philadelphia were under strict instructions from their respective states and the Congress to meet ‘for the sole and express purpose’ of revising the Articles of Confederation. As we know, they did much more than that. They threw out the Articles of Confederation and drafted a new constitution.
The 55 men present at that conference locked the doors – and even nailed the windows shut – to the public and the press, and proceeded to draft an entirely new document which replaced the Articles of Confederation. Many believe that what our founders did was providential; however, it hardly seems wise to trust the special interests of today with powers that could be used "lawfully" to re-write or worse... replace our Constitution.
At the Conference of States, the delegates created a Committee of the Whole, passed a resolution repealing the Articles of Confederation and continued on with what became known as the first and only Constitutional Convention. Can you imagine hearing, "The Constitution for the United States of America is hereby dissolved."? It happened that way in the 1787 Convention. . . it could happen again.
"Remember the [1787] convention came together as a result of a convention call by Congress. Its actions were reviewed no less than twice (many times that if you count the ratification votes in each state) before its proposal actually took effect and clearly the recommendations could have been rejected. That's hardly an example of "unlimited" power." The ratification process you reference was defined by the Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation - proof that the convention delegates' powers were unlimited - they set the new rules for ratification. This is a point you continuously and conveniently ignore. When I proved my point by including Corpus Juris Secundum 16, you conveniently ignored that as well. Bill... nobody but you and your little posse believes this "ignore it and nobody will notice" strategy is working.
On the issue of the date of the Burger letter, I pulled it from memory... sorry I was off two years. Apparently unlike you, I don't have time to spend all of my day doing research... I run several businesses and have three children to take care of.
On the issue of con-con call resolutions dying at the end of the legislative session: When I ask you why, if resolutions stand in perpetuity, you cite 100s of such resolutions, you answered, "First, because they can. Second, because if you had read them you'll see the states wanted more than just a single amendment issue as an agenda before a convention." Because they can??? I'll not honor that with a reply. Your second point is meaningless as well because I've proven the impossibility of restricting the con con to any specific issues / amendments.
"The powers controlling the "con con" process will be the ones primarly responsible for the usurpation of the Constitution. B.S. The Constitution is being usurped by the federal government. The Constitution itself states none of these people can remain in power and be delegates to a convention. The states would pay for and be responsible for the election of delegates none of whom could hold federal office other than that of delegate. " Did I ever say the only enemies of the Constitution are the puppets who have been elected??? NO!!! I've continuously asserted that the puppeteers are the main problem. Just as they pull the strings to ensure that their minions are elected, they'll ensure that con con delegates are theirs to do their bidding.
"The convention would be an extraordinary public event entirely issue oriented and every action of every delegate would be scrutized." Just like it was in 1787 when they nailed the windows shut?
"As to the criminal, there is nothing laughable about what you propose. You propose to intercept people's money who have choosen to pay their federal income taxes as required by federal law and hold it. Be that done by a state or an individual, that is stealing and it is against the law. And nothing you can say can alter that. " Now who is ignoring the Constitution??? The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Unlike the limited powers of the federal government, the powers of the states are unlimited. That would include the power to reign in their rogue agent by cutting off the flow of money (being used for unlawful programs) from their citizens. When its agent is in default, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it from taking action.
At this point, my case has been made. I feel very confident that the readers of this thread will see the holes in your argument are big enough to moor the QEII. ...that they see your dancing around the issues as an indication of your ulterior (nefarious) motives. For the sake of our Constitution, I thank God that the vast majority of Patriots agree with me - that the efforts to invoke a con con are nothing more than a con.
I always rest assured in my confidence that the Declaration of Independence is a superior document to the Constitution of the United States. I do my best not to forget this: Should the Constitution ever fail by means of special interests hell-bent on destroying it, I will have no option other than to exercise my right and duties as declared so concisely and eloquently in the former.
Having said that, I believe that the people, when presented with facts during public debate, will come to their senses—and even if they do not, 'it does not take a majority to prevail, only a tireless minority determined to set brushfires of liberty in the minds of others,' etc.
However, one thing is quite certain: there will not be a public forum for actual debate unless the people themselves call for it. Congress is not likely to take it upon itself to open doors of communication which might jeopardize its position of power.
I'm going to give you some advice. I know you won't take it, but I'm going to give it anyway. Don't misquote public record. Don't distort public record. It's too easy for people to check it and when they realize you have done so, they simply will refuse to believe you ever again no matter what you say or write about.
Now, you've tried the same "typographical error" stunt with the Burger letter as everyone else who has written about it has done in order to explain the mistakes, errors and inconsistencies in that so-called 1988 Burger Letter. I've exposed them in my column and the reason I did so was because opponents such as yourself have based their arguments on such "evidence" which has and is proved to be inaccurate or outright false. I've done this because we are discussing a serious subject here, the amendment of the Constitution and nut cases like yourself who try to throw sand in the faces of people who realize serious issues of a constituitonal nature face this nation only makes finding solutions that much harder.
You offer no solution. You've not made one statement that solves or proposes to solve anything. FOAVC does. We offer a new forum in which citizens can come together and solve problems. It is safe. It is legal. It is constitutional.
Now as to your citation of the convention call. As usual you distort history and public record. You state the myth the convention acted on its own to create the Constitution. Allow me to provide the actual text of the convention call issued by Congress on February 21, 1787 and then cite afterwards a section of the Constitution itself as absolute proof that no wool was pulled over the eyes of anyone and that the convention, as very well described by Madison in Federalist 40 (who cites this same language) simply carried out the instrutions Congress gave it.
Let me also point out again that any action by the convention was, according to law under the Articles of Confederation, reviewed at least twice--once by Congress and once by the states before it became law of the land.
The convention call:
"Whereas there is provision in the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union for making alterations therein by the Assent of a Congress of the United States and of the Legislatures of the several States...
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 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 and preservation of the Union."
Note the term: "render the federal Constituition" meaning Congress instructed a new instrument be "rendered" called the "Constitution" and if there is any doubt that of this, remembering that Congress first had to approve this proposal before it went to the states and it clearly understood what it wrote in February, 1787, then Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution removes any doubt:
"No States shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation..."
In short, as usual, USAF Dan has distorted public record in a desperate attempt to prove his points. In this instance he failed to note the term "render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and preservation of the Union.." was contained in the instructions. Congress did not say render the Articles of Confederation adequate to the exigencies of Government and preservation of the Union, they said render the Constitution adequate.
The convention did as they were instructed. The rendered the federal "Constitution" adequate to the exigencies of Government preservation of the Union. They then presented this proposal to Congress as instructed who, in turn, presented to the states after having first examined it and passed upon it, without any changes whatsoever including the clause which clearly eliminated the Articles of Confederation. If the convention had not been so authorized by the convention call of Congress clearly that body would not have passed the Constitution on untouched but would have, at the minimum, removed the clause of the Constitution prohibiting a confederation.
Now USAF Vet Dan keeps saying these delegates had unlimited power. History, public record and facts prove otherwise. Those reading this debate are going to have to make up their minds. Our nation faces many great perils today and many of them can only be resolved by amendments to our present form of government. USAF Vet Dan says he doesn't oppose amending the Constitution then says he opposes a convention because he says it will rewrite the entire document. He provides not one shred of proof for this statement; not one quote from anyone outside of his tiny band of zealots. To do as he suggests would requre a tremendous political force, not only to control the convention but the ratification procedure as well not to mention the government itself.
USAF Vet Dan can't even name one political figure, yet alone an entire political movement, who has stated they want to write a new Constitution. He distorts public record and when challenged says he made a typographic error or says he hasn't the time to be accurate. Then he expects everyone to simply believe him anyway, a man who admits he is inaccurate.
Simple question: if Mr. USAF Vet Dan is inaccurate about the Burger Letter and inaccurate about the convention call of 1787 how can it be believed he is accurate about an Article V Convention or anything else he states?
And finally note that he completely ignores my statement about the government have the power as authorized by the courts to veto the Constitution. Now why doesn't he just say, "Well the courts have said Congress can veto the Constitution and not call a convention even if the Constitution says they have to. I support that. I support the government having right to veto the Constitution and thus stop a constitutional convention which might veto the Constituiton. Better to go with a known group that can veto the Constitution than risk an unknown group vetoing the Constitution, I always say."
Com'on Vet, let's hear you support the court's ruling. You don't want a convention. You've got a federal court ruling which says the government doesn't have to do it because it can veto the Constitution. Explain why none of you anti-constitutionalists aren't shouting this from the roof tops. Maybe because this court ruling is real and you realize the consequences of such a ruling.
This is the reason behind our supporting a convention call. We realize what can and is happening to this country if this ruling stands and the only way to truly overturn it is to obey the Constitution and call a convention. The alternative is so terrible, the choice you offer, is so destructive, it cannot be accepted and must be rejected by the people.
The choice is stark: either the Constitution is obeyed or it is not. Either it is the law of this land or it is not. You urge it not be because you urge parts of it be disobeyed by the government. We at FOAVC urge it be obeyed. That is the choice facing us. The Constitution states if enough states apply, Congress must call a convention. The states have applied in sufficent number to cause such a call. The question before us is this: do we obey the Constitution and deal with any issues regarding that obedience or do we set the precedent that the Constituiton can be vetoed by the government allowing it the sole privilege to decide which parts of the Constitution will be obeyed by it?
So who shall you believe on this most critical and fundamental question facing us today--FOAVC which bases its statements on documented facts and public record or a man who admits he is inaccurate and hasn't the time to ensure what he says is accurate?
You continuously refuse to address the two PRIMARY concerns that motivate rational people to oppose a con con.
1. That the changes made to the Constitution (likely to the extent of replacing it completely) will be terrible ones... that those who are selected as delegates will be hand-picked agents of the same creeps who control our electoral process (via the RepubliCrat parties) and all other influential venues. I'm amazed at how you think that, by ignoring this obvious concern, it will just go away.
2. That a con con cannot be limited to any particular issue(s) or amendments. I've cited Corpus Juris Secundum 16 which you continuously ignore. Again, ignoring something won't make it go away.
You try to obfuscate the debate in an effort to distract readers from these two primary concerns... attacking my credibility, my intentions, and even personally attacking my intellect. If nothing else, doing so violates the basic rules of debate for which you lose credibility. Yes, there are other things you ignore such as indicators of nefarious intentions like the Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America. You attempt to obfuscate the reality that the Articles of Confederation were completely abandoned by the con con delegates when they opted to create the Constitution. You ignore the fact that the Constitution was ratified under ITS rules of ratification, thus proving that the Articles of Confederation was terminated by the delegates, not by congressional and/or state action. You refuse to acknowledge that state resolution calls for a con con expire even though you admit that hundreds of such calls have been issued by the states over the centuries. Most importantly, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that our country's problems are the direct results of our government ignoring the Constitution... that they will be just as apt to ignore the amended Constitution, so the con con will do nothing to fix the ills that plague America. High risk with no prospect of gain is why I and so many other patriotic Americans oppose the con-con con.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge these points, facts, and evidence? I can only conclude it is because you are trying to con Americans into supporting an effort to destroy our Constitution. You are of the ilk of James M. Burns, who on page 160 of his book Reforming American Government stated:
"Let us face reality. The framers have simply been too shrewd for us. They have outwitted us. They designed separated institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to ‘turn the founders upside down – to put together what they put asunder – we must directly confront the Constitutional structure they erected..."
I, on the other hand, am in line with James Madison, the prime motivator of our nation's first and only convention, who was horrified by the mere suggestion of reconvening. In a letter to George Turberville, he said:
"Under these circumstances 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".
So should we all tremble for the result of a second.
One last thing regarding Burger's letter: There are actually three letters posted on Schlafly's website. You'll note that two of them have 1986 dates and one (the one I posted) has a 1988 date. It should be apparent how I got the dates mixed up.
But I'll take this opportunity to post links to all three letters so the readers here can see Burger took an anti-con-con stance in all of them.
As to the Burger Letters. I have written two columns on the subject of the Burger Letters. I see no reason to repeat them here other than to provide links to them. The first column is [link edited for length] and the second is [link edited for length] .
I believe I fully discuss what is authentic and what is not. I also describe several questions surrounding the so-called 1988 Burger letter, chief of which is the fact Burger stated publicly that 1) he realized there was a difference between an Article V Convention and a constitutional convention and 2) that he felt a convention was not a threat to our nation nor would it remove rights already enjoyed by Americans. In short, the 1988 letter is refuted by earlier public statements which are mentioned or referred to in the 1986 letters. Yes, I believe the 1986 letters are authentic primarily because copies of them will reside in the National Archives since they were written while Burger was Chief Justice. Opponents to a convention have conveniently ignored the full public record of Warren E. Burger and it is time that record was fully discussed. That public record of course would include Phyllis Schlafly releasing copies of the letters she wrote to Burger and explanations of other questions I raise in my columns both of which she has refused to do.
Vet Dan, as usual you keep sliding away as soon as you are proven wrong. Don’t you realize yet people read all this column not just one part of it? I’ve proven you wrong on the Burger Letters. I’ve shown you’ve distorted history and public record and YOU have the nerve to say I “obfuscate the debate in an effort to distract readers”?
I’ll take your statements in no particular order. First, as to an expiration of any application by the states. As anyone who bothers to go to [link edited for length] where the texts of the over 700 applications from all 50 states can be read, and actually reads these texts, clearly can read the applications are submitted “under the authorization of Article V” or by use of a similar text. In short, as described by the Supreme Court in Hawke v Smith 253 U.S. 221 (1920) when the applications are submitted to Congress they cease to have authority under state law or act and instead are authorized by Article V of the Constitution. In short, they are no longer state but federal.
Article V does not prescribe or allow for any application to be limited in any fashion. Therefore, once it has been submitted by a state it is an ongoing application which, as I’ve said before, if you actually would read the applications, you’ll see countless references by the states to this fact.
The Supreme Court was no less clear in Hawke that Article V is a what you see is what you get part of the Constitution. It stated, “The language of the article is plain, and admits of no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.” The court then continued, “This argument [referring to issue of the case which was proposed amendments could be ratified by referendum instead of a direct vote of the state legislature] is fallacious in this-ratification by a state of a constitutional amendment is not an act of legislation within the proper sense of the word. It is but the expression of the assent of the state to a proposed amendment. ... It is true that the power to legislate in the enactment of laws of a state is derived from the people of the state. But the power to ratify a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution has its source in the federal Constitution. The act of ratification by the state derives its authority from the federal Constitution to which the state and its people have alike assented.”
In short, the court made it plain that the actions of a state in regards to the amendment procedure derive their authority not from state law or process (which is why you are wrong about your sine die argument) but from the federal Constitution. As such your arguments about sine die are wrong because Article V doesn’t discuss or even allow it and as the court noted, neither the courts nor the state legislatures national or state have the authority to change anything in Article V.
And please do us all a favor. Don’t make yourself look entirely ridiculous by trying to state that just because the court was discussing ratification, it doesn’t apply to applications or proposing amendments. There is such a thing as obvious. Once the court has said state derived its authority from the federal constitution, that means all parts of the federal constitution apply.
You mention again the Articles of Confederation. I’ve discussed this at length and am not disposed to do so again. You base your argument on false data that I’ve shown is false. The Congress in 1787 clearly instructed the convention to render the federal Constitution not the Articles of Confederation .... I’ve shown that the termination of the Articles of Confederation was contained in language in our present Constitution and for the record, it was terminated by votes of each state along with Congress. These are public, historic records and you can find them in any public library along with any Google search. To state otherwise simply shows how foolish you are. And speaking of which, your argument the 1787 convention could do anything but propose is defeated by a historic fact. Under the terms of the Articles of Confederation, it required unanimous consent for any action to occur. Rhode Island never sent any delegates to the 1787 convention meaning that no matter what was decided, it could never be unanimous. Therefore the delegates had no power whatsoever to do anything you state because even under the terms of the Articles it had to be unanimous and it wasn’t.
You discuss the fact the government is ignoring the Constitution. That I concede you are right and accurate. But then you stray again and say if there are new amendments the government is as apt to ignore them as they do the present Constitution. What if the amendments provide new tools to the people designed to deal specifically with that event? For example, if an amendment follows the 1910 submission by the state of Wisconsin and we have a national referendum, initiative and recall amendment which allows the people to challenge any act of the government or the bureaucracy by placing the matter for a vote of the people? What if we have an amendment that puts court rulings by the Supreme Court under review by state legislatures, a vote of the people or other body where sufficient disagreement to warrant such a review exists? These are but a few examples of solutions the states have offered but which have been stymied by you and your allies in government who believe in disobeying the Constitution of the United States. In short, you hold the reason we should not have a convention is because given that everyone knows there is a problem with the government they will do nothing about it even though that is the general theme of over 700 applications from the states--to deal with problems the federal government in its actions has caused.
As to Madison’s letter, you slip slide as usual. I’m including a link to the full letter in order to place the quote you make, which you took out of context, in proper context. The link is: [link edited for length] . Obviously when one read the entire letter it clear Madison was discussing the problems associated with a second convention to make changes to the Constitution which at the date of the letter, November 2, 1788 had not yet even been ratified. His letter refers to an effort by New York to have a new convention draft up changes to the proposed Constitution over concerns about sections that state needed to be in the Constitution. These concerns were later addressed in the form of the Bill of Rights. All of this I said is well known historic fact and be verified on a hundred different sites on the Internet. Madison was stating the issues of having another convention to yet write again a new document would be very difficult and that he favored the use of amendments once the new Constitution had been ratified. According to one of several sources, [link edited for length] ratification of the Constitution did not occur until 1789. So much for that misconstruement of public record and historic fact.
This neatly leads me into discussing your first two points. First, the fact is yes a convention can propose Amendments. That’s in Article V. You’re trying to make a mountain out of molehill and make people fear something that's been in our Constitution since it was created. Congress can propose amendments on different subjects. So what? You seem to believe that someone must have the power to “limit” a convention. You ignore the fact the Constitution assigns that limitation power to the states in the form of an extremely high ratification vote by the states already. What you really mean is, you want to be able to control the political agenda of a convention to advance your own agenda and you don’t like it that you can’t do that. Your argument that a convention being able to discuss more than one amendment issue is meaningless as you, or anyone else, fails explain why it is not an equal threat with Congress as it has the identical power of proposal. When I hear you screaming all this fear mongering about Congress having this power and they should be “limited” and no one can do it, then I and others will pay heed. Until then your argument is meaningless because you ignore the fact that any threat you say exists still remains in the form of Congress being able to do the exact same thing. And you are totally silent on this part of the question.
Now to your final point regarding delegates. First of all this issue has been discussed by me (and others) at great length. I usually don’t bring that reference to the Internet table however because it is long, deep and for most people totally boring. I refer to my overlength brief I submitted in my first lawsuit in 2000. This brief is over 800 pages long. It contains over 1600 footnotes. It uses as its references some 208 Supreme Court rulings to back up its premise that Congress must call a convention and more importantly, that sufficient law currently exists to answer any and all questions in the area you describe to hold a convention safely. Now I’m going to give you the citation for this. I expect you to read this before wasting my time with some retort. If you pop back up here in less than a week it will be obvious to all you’ve not bothered to read any of it. I suggest you start at page 495 and read through to page 654. Basically you’ll find that under the terms of the 14th Amendment, all laws which apply to Congress regarding election and limits on it also equally apply to the delegates meaning they would be under the same restrictions as members of Congress except in a few areas.
These few areas are significant. First of all, all delegates will be non-partisan offices. The reason for this is the fact that no convention delegate ever elected in this country, so far as I can determine, have ever been anything but non-partisan. Hence, no party influence. State laws to this effect are in effect and there is no reason to suggest the state legislatures will not extend them to include AVC delegates. Indeed, as my references show, it is certain. The reason for that is the fact that unlike the usual political office, a convention delegate will be dealing strictly and entirely with issues. The only thing that voters will be able to vet a delegate/candidate on will be his position on amendment issues. He has no other function but to vote on those issues. Hence, the delegate/candidate will be strictly on a “fess-up” basis during election. He will have to state how he will vote on each of the 20 issues before a convention along with any others that, during the course of the election, may be proposed by citizens, newspapers, candidates or whomever. This fact alone will eliminate much of the “control” you speak of because any violation of trust by a delegate or delegates would only result in a backlash which will be unleashed during the ratification process. And I remind you, it takes a very small number of people to defeat a proposed amendment.
There is another important fact you overlook. The delegate/candidate cannot be re-elected because once the convention has concluded its constitutional business of amendment proposal it is adjourned sine die. To have another convention will require a new set of applications and a new set of delegates. Therefore a delegate cannot and will not have a re-election fund. That eliminates another “control” you speak of.
Next, the office will be unpaid. A convention has no power beyond proposing amendments. It can not legislate. It can not issue a court ruling nor an executive decision. It has no military authority nor even police powers. Most important to this discussion is the fact it cannot tax, not even to the extent of acquiring enough funds to cover its own expenses. Hence, due to lack of funds, its existence will be short, direct and to the point: discuss the amendments, propose those that can get 2/3rds support from the delegates be that by delegate count or by state count and go home. Just as all the other conventions in the country have done since 1776.
Finally is the political reality you always overlook. You assume there is only one set of “creeps”. In fact, there are many all fighting for political control. Let’s assume for the moment you are right and the “creeps” as you call them do control all the delegates. Now we already know that despite the fact the “creeps” control Washington, they are unable to get control of the Constitution. Why? Because each group of “creeps” controls a part of the pie and because the Constitution requires consent among groups, it requires cooperation among the various groups of “creeps” to do this and that doesn’t happen very often in the amendment process—27 times to be exact in nearly 250 years of this nation. Hence, the math says that even if the “creeps” do own every delegate, that power will be politically split between various groups of “creeps” and under those circumstances, nothing will be accomplished.
However, the political effect of a convention will be profound. The convention offers a solution and I suspect people will not be disposed to elect delegates they think are controlled by any “creeps” that will thwart that solution. The American people are lot smarter than you give them credit for Vet Dan and don’t try to say otherwise. The fact you believe that “creeps” will control everything shows you have no faith either in America or the American people or their form of government. Hence the delegates will not be controlled. Finally, there is another fact you always overlook. These delegates will be facing a reality you obviously don’t acknowledge. The reality of what they do or don’t do is going to be remembered forever. Their names will be in the history books and they will be held directly responsible for whatever takes place. The weight of that kind of responsibility will make them perform not to their lowest level, but their highest. Remember after the convention is done they will no longer be delegates. They are going to have return to their homes and face those who elected them and explain why they did this or why they didn’t do this. And people aren’t likely to forget given a convention most likely will last a week at the most.
I could go into much more detail but I prefer you simply read the reference. It is:
_________________________ d.a.n. wrote: "The fear-mongering about an Article V Convention is totally flawed, because those that oppose it always omit to tell you that it requires 3/4 of all states to ratify any amendment." _________________________
USAF Vet Dan wrote: Because the delegates' powers are unrestrained, they can create new ratification requirements. This occurred in the only Con Con this nation has ever seen - when the Articles of Confederation were tossed out in favor of the new constitution drafted by the delegates and ratified according to the NEW ratification procedure contained within the NEW constitution. _________________________ Nonsense. Again, nothing can legally be changed without 3/4 vote by all of the United States. So such fear-mongering is logically flawed.
Also, there have been 679 Constitutional Conventions ([link edited for length]) by all 50 states, and none of them got out of control.
You choose to overlook numerous facts that are inconvenient to your argument which is growing weaker and weaker (if not totally lame).
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: On your assertion that Congress is ignoring the hundreds of state calls for a Con Con... balderdash, propaganda, etc. "Sine die" Resolutions die at the end of the session and have to be passed again in the new session. You're going back to the 1700s to total the number of state con con calls you assert. Silliness. _________________________ Merely calling something silly and proving it are two different things.
You don't have a credible explanation for these 730+ amendments, so you merely call them "silliness". What is true "silliness" is your evasions, twisting of the facts, and re-interpretations of the Constitution.
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: The rest of your diatribe isn't worth responding to. _________________________ That's because your arguemnt is very weak indeed. Thus, it's easier to just call things "silliness" and "diatribe", rather than provide credible facts.
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: I'm sorry for sounding trite, . . . _________________________ Yes, Now we agree on something. That's the usual response when one's arguments are so weak and failing.
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: I'm sorry for sounding trite, but I cannot imagine that anyone who gives this issue more than an initial glance won't immediately and firmly conclude that an Article V Convention is very dangerous and would do nothing to solve the problems our nation faces. _________________________ Nonsense. It requires 3/4 of all states to ratify any amendments, and all 50 states have had 679+ Constitutional Conventions without any of them getting out of control. So such fear-mongering simply doesn't make any sense.
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: Therefore, I can only conclude that those who continuously bang on this broken drum have more nefarious motives. _________________________ More unsubstantiated nonsense. What motives? Since when did wanting the U.S. Constitution to be obeyed become nefarious?
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: That makes you my enemy - and I don't use that term lightly. _________________________ OOOOOOOHHHHhhhhhhhhhhh . . . that sounds like a threat, eh?
I'm shaking in my boots.
Such comments such as that are all the proof needed to prove that your arguements are lame and unsubstantiated, and your assertions of time-limits, same-subject amendments, and contemporaneous requirements are completely false. If you would be so kind, where exactly in Article V does it mention anything about time-limits, same-subject amendments, and contemporaneous requirements? _____________________________ Article V of the U.S. Constitution: 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; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight [1808] shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. _____________________________
Thus, due to the frustration of a failing argument, you now resort to calling people your "enemy" and other nonsense?
If I had a nickel for every time someone dug themselves into a deep hole trying to defend a weak (or lame) argument, I'd be rich.
True to your modus operandi, you continue to ignore the PRIMARY issues, obfuscate the obvious, and persist with the points I've already destroyed. You've proved nothing except that the con-con is a con.
Address the PRIMARY issues I previously listed or this conversation is over, for I grow weary of your "duck and hide" tactics. The readers of this protracted thread can conclude who won the debate.
One last thing... my solution (the State Sovereignty Act) [link edited for length] has more than 4 times as many thumbs up as your con-con con... certainly not a large enough sample to be completely accurate, but it does show that people see the obvious flaws in the con and the merits of the Act.
Less than 24 hours as I expected. There is no physical way you could have read the reference I gave you in that time and checked out all the footnotes and other references associated. It deals directly with the issue you say is "primary", that is the operational side of a convention. It cites numerous court rulings effecting such a convention. In sum, it proves that a convention can be operated safely under already existing laws and court rulings.
It took a U.S. Attorney a full weekend reading eight hours a day to work his way through that brief (his words not mine) and he was still studying parts of it a week later so I know you didn't read it.
What is more than likely is you actually looked at my evidence and realized the jig was up. I proved my points and you saw as soon as I was able to do that, your diatribe was finished. Basically what it comes down to is this: either you believe Vet Dan as the expert in constitutional law or you believe the United States Supreme Court is the expert in constituitonal law. If you believe Vet Dan, then you believe a convention is a threat. If you believe the Supreme Court (including Warren Burger) then you believe it is not a threat.
As to the thumbs up part, let me give you basic facts. You make your statements and some people agree with you on single web site. I make my statements in a federal court and the U.S. Government in the form of the Solicitor General of the United States acting in his official capacity as attorney of record for the Congress of the United States states as a matter of public record formally and officially that what I have said is correct as to fact and law. What I said there I repeated here. Now which vote do think in the end matters more, your little web site vote or the official decision of the United States Government?
If you think I'm going to spend a weekend or more reading all of your convoluted crap, you are wrong. I'd have to be a proponent of DoubleSpeak to ignore the FACTS I've submitted on the issue.
You cite court rulings and I cite Corpus Juris Secundum 16 to which you NEVER respond. It ain't goin' away, Bill... no matter how much you'd like it to do so.
You pit my read on the Constitution against the Supreme Court's - the same Supreme Court that upholds Roe v. Wade, suspension of habeous corpus, and a list of bastardizations too numerous to mention. Considering that the Constitution was intentionally written at a 6th grade level, I'll let the readers draw their own conclusions.
Then comes the Warren Burger letters. You assert that the one I posted was a fake but then I point to two more... AGAIN I ask you - are all three fake???????
"I make my statements in a federal court and the U.S. Government in the form of the Solicitor General of the United States acting in his official capacity as attorney of record for the Congress of the United States states as a matter of public record formally and officially that what I have said is correct as to fact and law.... Now which vote do think in the end matters more, your little web site vote or the official decision of the United States Government?"
Well Bill, if your position is so iron clad with the feds, then why haven't we seen a con con by now???? Because you're full of BS.
If you think I'm going to spend a weekend or more reading all of your convoluted crap, you are wrong. I'd have to be a proponent of DoubleSpeak to ignore the FACTS I've submitted on the issue.
You cite court rulings and I cite Corpus Juris Secundum 16 to which you NEVER respond. It ain't goin' away, Bill... no matter how much you'd like it to do so.
You pit my read on the Constitution against the Supreme Court's - the same Supreme Court that upholds Roe v. Wade, suspension of habeous corpus, and a list of bastardizations too numerous to mention. Considering that the Constitution was intentionally written at a 6th grade level, I'll let the readers draw their own conclusions.
Then comes the Warren Burger letters. You assert that the one I posted was a fake but then I point to two more... AGAIN I ask you - are all three fake???????
"I make my statements in a federal court and the U.S. Government in the form of the Solicitor General of the United States acting in his official capacity as attorney of record for the Congress of the United States states as a matter of public record formally and officially that what I have said is correct as to fact and law.... Now which vote do think in the end matters more, your little web site vote or the official decision of the United States Government?"
Well Bill, if your position is so iron clad with the feds, then why haven't we seen a con con by now???? Because you're full of BS.
And finally the one thing you refuse to address... the thing that shows the undeniable hole in your whole position. The problems our nation faces today result from the federal government ignoring the Constitution. How is amending it going to change that??? They'll just ignore the amended Constitution!!! To debate this with you is like speaking out against Brondo in Idiocracy.
Vet Dan is showing signs of losing it. He's so shook up he's posted his comment twice. Maybe he thinks it'll have twice the effect if he does so.
Let's see... Vet Dan DEMANDS I address his "PRIMARY" concerns and when I do by providing a massive amount of evidence directly addressing his PRIMARY concern what does he say? "I'm not going to read it." He says he's have to be a proponent of doublespeak to ignore the facts he's submitted on the issue. Does that even make sense? He asks for facts to be presented. They are presented. Then he says he's not going to read them and only believe the facts he's presented.
Now for those who do not know Corpus Juris Secundum that Mr. Vet Dan keeps harping on is a legal encylopedia. It's very much like the World Book encylopedia but is devouted to legal subjects. Everything from criminal law to civil law is in this book. As such it is a generalized view of law just as an article in World Book is a generalized view. In order to get to the specifics, one has to turn to specific case law. All reputable lawyers and legal scholars cite the actual language of court decisions because these form the actual case law of any issue and they carry the weight of an actual judicial ruling. In short, case law citings trump a summary such as is provided in Vet Dan's reference. In the case of his reference, he cites the fact a convention can propose a constitution. True. What he ignores is the case law citing of Hawke V Smith and other Supreme Court decisions (all cited and discussed in my brief by the way) that make it clear the convention delegates under the term of Article V do not have the powers he says they do. Thus they are not the same thing. An Article V Convention is not a constitutional convention.An Article V Convention is authorized by the Constitution to propose amendments to our present Constituiton--nothing more. A constituitonal convention has, according to Vet Dan, unlimited powers. Article V does not authorize its convention to write a new constitution and as the Supreme Court said in Hawke v Smith, Article V is a what you see is what you get part of the Constitution--if it isn't said, it isn't there and it doesn't say a thing about writing a new constitution.
So while his reference is interesting, it is discussing a constitutional convention, not an Article V Convention which is what we are discussing. In short, his citation doesn't apply because it is discussing something outside the Constituiton. As to his state law citings, please note again any legal citations must be federal not state because as the court noted, the conveniton is federal not state, in nature. Thus state court ruligns don't apply. Note that Vet Dan does not give reference to the discussion of Article V in his Corpus citing. I guarantee you a full discussion of all the Constitution is in there but somehow he never cites any of it. Why not? If he is correct, then doesn't it follow that in the Article V article it would repeat or back up his conclusions about the power of an Article V Convention? If he is correct, you'd assume it would . Nor does he give citings to the four decisions of the Supreme Court about Congress' obligation to call a convention. You'd assume any legal article on Article V would discuss these and someone would, if Vet Dan is correct, come to the conclusion he's presented but somehow he just never talks about these citations in Corpus. Wonder why? In short, Vet Dan only presents one article and only a small part of that. I guarantee you that article is a lot longer than the three or four sentences he's picked out to prove his case. He presents no other references in his Corpus citation such as I've mentioned. Why? Because I suspect that if the matter is researched you'll find quotes and citations that refute, define, limit or otherwise disprove his assertions---right in the reference he cites himself.
The language of Article V, as I've said before, is clear. A convention is limited to proposing amendments and no more. It cannot write a new Constitution. It has no power outside of amendment proposal. I've given numerious citations to back up these statements, all case law.
Vet Dan for some reason is hung up on an article in one generalized legal source. He doesn't even provide a link where this source can be read in full so that it can be determined whether or not he has, as he has demonstrated already, taken material out of context in order to present a view that when put into context, is not a true reflection of the article. And how can one respond to something when, unlike Vet Dan, they cannot read it for themselves? If Vet Dan provided a link, I'd read it because that is the way I am. I don't refuse to read anything someone has written. I judge it after I have done so. But I refuse to comment or respond to something where I cannot independently review all of the article in question including review of all references, court citings and other such materials that would be used as reference for the material presented. By denying me and eveyone else access to the full article as well as any others that are cross referenced to it, by not letting us read all the material he is attempting to win his argument based on his own personal censorship and I will not respond until I can read all the article says, not just a part of it he chooses to present. This would include, of course, all other applicable references to other articles such as I've mentioned along with any others that might apply.
Vet Dan speaks about "facts" he's presented. Has he in fact done so? Not really. He presents such "facts" as he wants everyone to see but he doesn't present all the "facts." I have. My link to the brief is the complete brief. FOAVC shows all the applications and in a form that anyone can check them for accuracy as well as validity. All of the court documents in the federal lawsuits are on-line and can be examined by anyone, anytime, anywhere. Vet Dan does not. This is a fact. It is not a put down, an insult or anything else. It is a fact.
As to the Burger Letters. I gave links to them in my reply. These links answer his question. One can only assume by his comment he hasn't bothered to read those either. In short, what we have here is a man who is prejudiced and close minded and will not let anything change his mind. And how does he stay this way? By not even listening or even reading anything which might change his mind or prove him wrong.
On his personal information on this site Vet Dan says he ran for Congress. Good for him. He also says he "won" a debate with a member of Congress during the election. Note he says he didn't win the election. Note he doesn't say who said he "won" his debate. Not that his obligated to provide one to prove his statement, but I suspect that Vet Dan is a legend in his own mind when it comes to winning that debate and his source for saying so is himself.
One has to wonder what kind of Congressman Vet Dan would have been if had been elected given how he has approached this issue, a federal issue, one that had he been elected he would have had to deal with directly. Would he shouted publicly as he has here that no way was he going to support calling an Article V Convention? If he had, then that would have been a violation of his oath of office and under the criminal law that applies, he'd spend a year in jail and been removed in office.
But more importantly, I wonder how open minded he would have been on other issues his district wanted addressed if he personally had all the "facts" about an issue and made up his mind about it? Would he listen if people from his district tried to present other facts? Would he take the time even to read their material or would he be as he has demonstrated here--a man who is unwilling to listen or even read anything which might prove him wrong. Probably the latter.
Given this, should the word of a man who won't even examine evidence be taken as a reliable source of information and more importantly the basis on which people should then act? In short, do you really want to believe someone who is inaccurate, prejudice, and close minded? The reason I bring this up is because it is important that people realize the kind of people that are behind these wild accusations and half truths about an Article V Convention. Vet Dan is one of them and he is putting his issue and more importantly, himself on full display for everyone to judge for themselves how reliable he and his information is. Both are clearly lacking and the fate of our Constitution is too important to be left in the hands of people such as Vet Dan.
As to his last statement about the iron clad part, what makes you think Vet Dan progress isn't already happening on this front? After all, given that you don't read anything that is pro-convention it's no surprise you might not have heard about any news that proves you wrong.
"Vet Dan is showing signs of losing it. He's so shook up he's posted his comment twice."
Now you have to resort to using technical glitches to attack me?
Bill, let me end this... all of the points have been made and readers would have long ago concluded that you are promoting a scam. It appears that you must be on the Elite's payroll as you seem to have endless amount of time to blather on and on and on in your attempt to con Americans into destroying their Constitution.
I did notice that you never address Corpus Juris Secundum 16. I noticed that you didn't address any of my points.
I'll resist responding to all of your personal attacks about my congressional run, and my record as an ACTIVE constitutionist. But for all the readers who would like to see someone really "give it to you", let me say that you are an asshole, and an ignorant one at that. I only wish I had the opportunity to "discuss" this face to face with you. That would be a true joy, indeed.
Vet Dan, if there is a scam here, it is yours. Now you've shown you don't even read my responses. I'll try this one more time. Send me a link to the full article, unedited by you along with the other articles I mentioned in Corpus Juris Secundum and then I will debate it with you.
Further, I did respond. I discussed Corpus as it relates to the very, very, very common practice of reference to actual case law. You haven't refuted I was wrong nor have you provided any references to prove that Corpus is the ultimate word in law. If it were, then don't you think the Supreme Court would be citing it. I've checked many Supreme Court and lower court rulings and can find none that refer to this source. All refer to case law instead. Saying I didn't address an issue when anyone can simply read I did clearly shows how far gone you are. It's one thing to say I didn't prove anything in my statements and then say why and some may agree with you but it's quite another to say I didn't address Corpus Juris when anyone can read in black and white that I did.
I won't bother revisiting your "destroying the Constitution" bit because, as I've proved, you are inaccurate in your statements.
I notice you didn't respond to my query as to what you would have done as a member of Congress when your oath of office required you obey Article V. Interesting. For had you been elected, you would have faced that issue head-on. Fortunately the voters of your district had the good sense to elect someone else.
As to your points, what points? I've proven with documented, referenced facts which you state that you say will not read, are wrong. Obviously you believe I haven't done so because you haven't read them so they must be wrong in your mind.
As to your congressional run, give me the state, your name, the date of the race and I'll check out its record. I'll go back into the newspaper accounts of it. I'll read the editorials about you in various newspapers. There are probably still blogs and other comments floating on the Internet about your run. I'm guessing here of course, but I'll bet you didn't make it past the primary and were near the bottom of those running. I'm guessing that because I'm willing bet the traits you've shown here--prejudice and inaccuracy showed up the election just as they've shown here.
If you had proof that Corpus was the final say on the issue of an Article V Convention, you'd have long, long, long ago used it. You never have either on this exchange or any other. Obviously therefore you have nothing that backs up your own personal opinion. I do. I say what I say because the Supreme Court says it or the government itself says it or public record says it.
I'll repeat my request one last time so you can't say I didn't ask: Post a link to the entire article you quote so everyone can read it for themselves along with any other articles I've mentioned so that everyone can judge for themselves. Then we will discuss it.
Jahfre Fire Eater said it better than anyone else can:
To date, the one thing that makes me suspicious of the whole lot of you is the topic Walt and/or I always bring up in these comments. That being the absolutist, blind-faith that proponents of liberty will be successful in promoting ideals into a new constitution than they ever have been at promoting them in our communities and our state and federal governments.
I can understand being optimistic, I can understand making reasonable assessment of the pros and cons then describing how that assessment process leads you to support of the AVC. I can only regard with suspicion what actually is happening. No analysis of risks. No debate over pros and cons. No strategy to mitigate risks. Nothing reasonable or rational at all is ever presented in an attempt to convince the public that a convention can lead to increased liberty. I smell a rat based on that simple observation.
Read the comments associated with this article for example after example of:
Personal attacks on those who dare mention the obvious risks.
Inability (or a deliberate and unified unwillingness) to distinguish between two separate and separately important issues:
- The constitutional process (To AVC or not To AVC is not the question but a distraction for the real question.)
- The likely outcome of that process with regard to liberty.. (This is the real question, the only relevant question and the question the blind-faithful Advocates avoid like the plague.)
The most common tactic of the blind-faithful AVC supporters is to ignorantly imply that if you question the possible outcome you are questioning the Constitution itself and being unpatriotic. This coming from supposedly liberty-loving individuals is no more acceptable than when it comes from collectivists and authoritarians.
Until the advocates of AVC can address the cons rather than pretending they don't exist, I can only assume they have something to hide. That means to me that they do not believe their own rhetoric. That means to me they intend to use the AVC to secure more power for the State and to promote their collectivist views in the convention. They appear to be wolves in sheep's clothing to me. I fear for my liberty when these wolves use their liberal fangs and teeth to tear our constitution asunder.
Thank you for the link. I'll read it and get back to you via this column. It may be a day or so before I respond. Unlike you, as I said, I read what people send me.
I did notice one thing already. Right at the top of the page the part about the Constitution having to be obeyed by both federal and state govenments meaning that if the Constitution says Congress must call, it must call. Funny how you never quoted that part about your reference.
Well, as promised, I read your Corpus Juris Secundum 16 [link edited for length]. Bad mistake on your part. The only reason I’ve never taken you head on on this is because I never could find a copy of the work in any public library I had access to and couldn’t locate it on line. You solved that and like many other opponents before gave me information that will help bring about a convention. Not the part we’re discussing. Something else. Thank you. Anyway I digress.
As I said, Corpus Juris Secundum 16 is part of a legal encyclopedia. It presents generalized information about an issue based on small quotes of numerous court decisions. I did go to Corpus Juris Secundum 9 and looked for your quote Vet Dan. Two points: 1) Your quote as you have written is not there but in another, section 8 (yet another example of Vet Dan’s level of accuracy and yet again proof as he himself states that he doesn’t read anything once he’s made up his mind about something) and you, Vet Dan, forgot to mention a few things about your reference and; 2) as I said before you used state cases to discuss the federal constitution and they don’t apply.
If I need any further proof of my statement, allow me to quote the Titles of Corpus Juris Secundum 9: Framing and Submission of Amendments by Legislature. In short Corpus Juris Secundum 9 concerns the proposal of amendments to a state constitution by a state legislature and any quotes in that section would be intended to discuss a state constitutional convention not a federal Article V Convention. I’ll get to where that is discussed in a moment. In other words, even if what Vet Dan quoted in Section 9 was there it doesn’t apply because it is intended by the courts to be discussing conventions at the state level, not a federal constitution. The pages of section 9 begin at page 48 and go to page 60 of the book.
However in section 8 of the Corpus Juris Secundum I did find discussion of a state constitutional convention which I think readers will find very interesting and it shows beyond question that as I said, Vet Dan was censoring what he has been presenting. His quote, taken out of context, can be found on pages 47-48. What Vet Dan has always conveniently failed to mention is the book is discussing legal theory at this point and presents two opposing legal views, one entitled “Strict or narrow view of powers” and the other, from which Vet Dan takes his quote, “Liberal view of powers.” (Funny Vet Dan, I never thought of you as a liberal but I’ll be sure to mention that fact from now on.) Anyway, there are many state court citations backing the one view as the one Dan takes his quote from but all apply to state conventions and not an Article V Convention. Vet Dan is stating something as fact when in fact his own reference makes it clear it is legal theory and he has always acted as if his citation is the final word in the legal community which his own reference shows it is not.
Section 8 of the book does have interesting quotes however. For example on page 46 under the discussion of Character and Powers of a convention written before the two sections of legal theory meaning this quote is based on well settled, undisputed law Corpus states, “It [a constitutional convention] is, of course, subject to the limitations on the powers of the states contained in the constitution of the United States including the guaranty of a republican form of government; and the acts of one convention may not be invalidated by the subsequent convention.” Page 46. If there is any doubt that what I say about the citations referring to state conventions rather than the federal constitution, the wording of this quote refutes it. I’d say this quote pretty well deflates Vet Dan’s argument of using Corpus as the basis to prove that an Article V Convention would write a new constitution as even his own reference states, “the acts of one convention may not be invalidated by the subsequent convention.” In short, Vet Dan censored the quotes of his reference and failed to provide the fact that in his reference was a statement refuting his position, even if it was based on state rather than federal law.
But this not the only quote Vet Dan has censored. In Section 7, “Amendment and Revision of State Constitutions on pages 36-37 are two other quotes. “Any attempt to revise or adopt a new constitution in any other manner than the one provided in the existing instrument is almost invariably treated as extraconstitutional and revolutionary.” Please note that while we are still discussing state rulings (which Vet Dan says apply to federal law) this quote makes it clear that adoption of a new constitution must be provided in the constitution that is to be replaced. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Article V only authorizes amendments to our present constitution by the use of the term “as part of this Constitution” and has no provision whatsoever that allows for the adoption of a new constitution. Therefore any such effort would be extraconstitutional and there is not permitted under the terms of Article V. Finally is this quote on page 37: “The adoption by the people of a state of a complete and new constitution is not an amendment of earlier constitutions.” Again, as I’ve said before (quoting Article V and many legal references in doing so) Article V only authorizes the proposal and ratification of amendments to this Constitution and under no circumstances can a new constitution be considered an amendment.
Now of course Vet Dan will come back and say that what I’ve quoted doesn’t really apply and so on and so forth. He’ll try to slip by the fact he has based his entire belief on Corpus and now that belief is exposed for the fraud it is: that he has censored or otherwise hidden key facts in the use of his quote for his own purposes and therefore lied about the true meaning and legal effect and authority of his quotes. In short, as I’ve said Corpus does not prove his points, least of all when Vet Dan chooses to refer to sections which discuss state law and state constitutional conventions and not federal law and the federal Constitution, specifically Article V.
Now let’s turn to the part of Corpus which does discuss the federal Constitution. This begins on page 21 and ends on page 32. In that section readers will find quote after quote that FOAVC and I have used over and over again to prove our points, most of it federal court citations which of course apply to federal law and the federal constitution along with numerous state court citations echoing what the federal courts have stated. If nothing else I can now be credited with using the right section of Corpus as reference unlike Vet Dan.
Let’s start with a few quotes: “Viewed from the standpoint of legal character, a “constitution” in the American Sense of the term is the fundamental or basic law to which all others must conform. So the function of a constitution is to establish the framework and general principles of government and an objective standard of conduct by which all departments of the government shall be bound.” Page 23. In short, just as Hamilton said in Federalists 85, a convention call is peremptory as represented by the word “shall” and this means Congress must call a convention. Thus, using Vet Dan’s own reference, Corpus, (when you go to the right section of it, that is) you find it proves my points. It is stated that Congress must obey the Constitution and call an Article V Convention. This also means as the states have applied, there is no “debate” over whether to call one or not. The Constitution says it must be called. Period. So anyone urging otherwise, such as Vet Dan and his cohorts, is in fact, urging a revolutionary action of overthrowing the Constitution and it is he, not we of FOAVC who urge obedience to the Constitution, who are the real threat to it.
Now let us turn our attention to Section 6 which is entitled “Amendment and Revision of Federal Constitution.” Page 28. “Amendments to the federal Constitution may be made only in the manner therein provided in Article 5 and the only limitation now existing on the power of amendment under Article 5 is that '“no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.”' The provisions of the federal Constitution as to amendments have the same meaning today as they had when adopted and the people of any one of the several states cannot impose any limitations on the amendment power established by the federal Constitution.” What does this quote mean?
First it is establishes rescissions of applications by the states are invalid because that would be a state imposing limitations on the amendment power established by the federal Constitution. The reason is: 1) a single state could rescind an application at such a moment as to prevent a convention call which would take place otherwise thus allowing the state to veto the process and 2) there is no provision for such rescissions in Article V and therefore any rescissions are not permitted because it would establish a limit on the amendment power that is not established by the Constitution. Second, the quote reinforces my earlier state quotes about subsequent conventions invalidating the acts of an earlier convention and that a new constitution cannot be construed as being an “amendment” to the Constitution. Article V does not allow for a new constitution nor a constitutional convention and therefore no state is empowered to do so as this would limit the amendment power established by the federal Constitution.
Next quote, page 29. “The method of proposing amendments to the federal Constitution is governed solely by the provisions of that instrument”. [Emphasis added]. The quote then continues, “ In accordance with the provisions of Article 5, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two thirds of both houses of congress or by a convention called on application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states.” Note the language of this quote. “amendments may be proposed...by a convention called on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states.” The language of this quote is explicit: a convention proposes the amendments, not the states meaning the applications are for a convention call, not a specific amendment. Hence, it is a simple numeric count of applying states which is why the Solicitor General of the United States formally and officially for the public record admitted I was right as a matter of fact and law in my statements before the Supreme Court when I said the convention call was based on a simple numeric count of applying states with no other terms or conditions, it was peremptory and to refuse to do was a criminal violation of oath of office on the part of the members of Congress. Thanks for the additional reference source Vet Dan. I’ll add to the FOAVC’s references. Oh yeah, and as we all know by now all 50 states have submitted over 700 applications for an Article V Convention, 20 times the number needed to cause Congress to call.
Another quote, page 29. “The method of ratifying amendments to the federal Constitution is governed by the provisions of article 5. Whether proposed by congress or by a convention, an amendment does not become part of the constitution unless it is “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.” Just like FOAVC has repeated and I’ve repeated over and over again. An Article V Convention can only propose amendments. It has no power under Article V to do anything more than that. If an amendment is not ratified, it cannot become part of the Constitution.
Now this entire response has been about Corpus. I’ve addressed you Vet Dan specifically about Corpus as you demanded and, as I did with the Burger Letters and other things you’ve presented in this long exchange, proven yet again your inaccuracy, prejudice and more importantly your willingness to outright lie to people by censoring material you provide as reference. Face it Vet Dan. Every time you’ve made an accusation I’ve beaten you down with facts. This time I used nothing but your own reference (except of course the public record when discussing my lawsuit and the applications submitted by the states) to prove you wrong.
Time to throw in the towel and admit you’re wrong. I seriously suggest you actually take the time to read my material I’ve written and all of Corpus as it applies and get educated. I may make a column out of this reply and post it. Don’t worry I won’t mention you in that column by name so this reply is just between you, me and the rest of the Internet. Your incompetence will remain a secret don’t worry. But, be warned of this—I’m keeping a copy of this response. If I see you post that Corpus thing anywhere else I’m going to post this response to it. Don’t think of this as a threat Vet Dan, just me carrying out FOAVC’s statement mission—to inform the public of the truth about an Article V Convention and you sir, as I’ve shown, don’t tell the truth.
__________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: If you think I'm going to spend a weekend or more reading all of your convoluted crap, you are wrong. __________ Then you really aren't well informed. Seems to me anyone truly interested in this subject would want to know that the federal court essentially said a U.S. citizen has "no standing" if Congress violates Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Still, the court did not say Article V was not being violated. The court admits that plain, clear, and unambigous meaning of Article V.
As Bill Walker pointed out above, your attempt to use "Corpus Juris Secundum 16" to somehow invalidate Article V is severely flawed. No where does it is OK for Congress to ignore Article V.
The fact is, there is no law or court case anywhere that states that it is OK for Congress to ignore Article V. There is also no law or court case that disputes the clear and unambigous meaning of Article V. The only official statements from the federal government that state that Congress does not have to call an Article V Convention is member of Congress themselves.
Thus, members of Congress are all violating the U.S. Constitution. Eventually, another court case will be filed by a state and it will be difficult for the federal court to say the state has "no standing" (a common "catch-22" used by courts to ignore cases).
To summarize: (01) Article V ([link edited for length]) is plain and unambiguous and that has already been established. (02) There are many court cases that explicity speak of Article V and its original intent, and unambigous meaning. (03) There is nothing in the Federalist papers that disputes the original intent, and unambigous meaning. (04) There is no law or case anywhere that allows Congress to ignore Article V. (05) There is nothing in Article V, or any court case, or any existing law that establishes any same-subject or contemporaneous requirements. (06) Even if there was a same-subject requirement, that requirement has already been met. (07) Even if there was a requirment of contemporaneousness, that requirement has also been met (34+ BALANCED BUDGET amendment applications between 1975 and 1980). 104 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Article-V-Call applications have been submitted by 37 different states. 154 amendments applications were submitted by 34 States in 7 years from 1963 to 1969. 102 amendments applications were submitted by 35 States in 7 years from 1965 to 1971. (08) Article V states "whenever". That does not mean "optional". (09) Fear-mongering about a run-away convention are unfounded, since all 50 U.S. states have had over 679 constitutional conventions between 1776 and 1917 ([link edited for length]), and none of those got out of control. Iraq and Afghanistan had constitutional convention too. The state of Texas amends its constitution all the time. Many states do. So such fear-mongering about constitutional conventions is not substantiated by any historical precedent. (10) Fear-mongering about a run-away convention is also unfounded, since it requires 3/4 of all states to ratify any proposed amendments. (11) Attempts of construction to re-interpret Article V violate rules already established for the interpretation of Article V ([link edited for length]) (12) It does not matter if some people think an Article V Convention is a good or bad idea. It's the law. Those that don't like the law have the option to try to change it. (13) 730+ (14.6 amendments per state on average) Article V amendment applcations from all 50 states is starting to look very much like Congress has a conflict of interest. That's actually a no brainer. It's a no-brainer by Congress doesn't want an Article V Convention, because those that have (and abuse) power are rarely willing to give it up. Congress doesn't want a BALANCED BUDGET amendment, campaign finance reform, TERM-LIMITS, or a number of other reforms that have growing popularity because Congress is growing increasingly corrupt, FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt. Consider these many clever and unfair advantages ([link edited for length]) for incumbent politicians. They don't want anything to upset that, or possibly reduce their power or the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Our problems stem from our federal government ignoring the Constitution. Amending it will only mean that an amended constitution will be ignored.
Con Cons are dangerous because they cannot be controlled, no matter how much you try to side step and obfuscate the issue.
Anybody who looks for a second beyond the MSM propaganda sees the strength of the grip the Elite have on all elements of our government (duopoly RepubliCrat parties, courts, legislation, etc.). Therefore, those of intellectual honesty cannot ignore that the outcome of a Con Con would be controlled by those who oppose freedom and liberty
Under today's circumstances, anyone who looks at the facts for more than 5 minutes and still supports the con con is an enemy of our Republic.
Nope. Not going to let you get away with this anymore. You've brought up Corpus and as soon as you're proved wrong just like I said you slip slide away. It don't work that way. You keep saying I haven't proven anything or addressed anything and then you slip slide to another issue when I do prove my point that you pick and choose expecting me to let you set the battlefield. Not any more. I don't have to prove anything. I'm the one defending the position the Constitution must be obeyed; you're the one advocating it should be overthrown. Given the normal situation of human existence, laws are obeyed, not violated meaning my position is the correct and moral position, that the Constitution must be obeyed. Yours in the incorrect and immoral position that we should disobey the Constitution. It is you who is advocating overthrowing the instrument, not me. I no more required to justify my position than I would be if I saw someone trying to break into a house, or hurt someone bodily and shouted for them to stop and they asked me, "but you haven't addressed all the issues of proving I have to obey the law so why do I have to obey it?"
Yes, I have addressed all the issues. The law is the law. End of discussion. The law says we have to have a convention call. Period. It doesn't say we have one but only if people like yourself agree that those who advocate the law be obeyed can justify that the law be obeyed. I don't have to justify the Constitution to you or anyone else. You are the one required to justify your position--overthrowing the Constitution and in every assertion you've made, I've proven you wrong. Now you have gone to issues of pure speculation and supposition. In answer to you questions--the ratification proceedure will take care of those issues you cite and I know that you support that answer in full and total.
Time to end this game. Remember me asking for your name? Wasn't hard to find when you discuss running for Congress and there on your own website, your campaign site, Mr. Dan Druck is the following:
"Our federal government's intended role - its lawful role - is clearly defined by our Constitution: that ageless, living document created to evolve with the ever-changing times via Article V. Within this framework, our nation became the most prosperous and free nation on earth. But today, a belief has been cultivated that we have government limited only by popular opinion. Gradually, we have allowed our government to ignore its Constitutional constraints. We have allowed our elected officials to take us on an uncharted course to an unknown destination. We have failed to heed Jefferson's wise words and the resulting problems are now becoming apparent."
By the use of your own campaign quote Mr. Druke, (by the way nice photograph of you) you are in favor of using Article V to control the government and notice, not one word about not using all of Article V. No caveats, no astericks in your campaign announcement which is the centerpiece of your entire website at www.timefordan.com.
And, I know you hate it when I point our your inaccuracies but it is "constitutionalist" not "constitutionist". That's a mistake you made on your author's page at Nolan Chart and I've been meaning to correct your spelling error.
So, before we continue with your tirad, care to explain why it is you are making such a fuss to oppose using Article V to correct the federal government when you are on public record as supporting the use of Article V to do so unless 1) you were just lying to those you hoped would vote for you or 2) like everything else it seems you actually have never read Article V and didn't realize there are two different ways to propose amendments or 3) what you said about Article V that by the framework of Article V we became "the most prosperous and free nation on earth" you really didn't mean it.
And don't try the "Article V created the 1787 Convention we might not get that lucky again" line. The 1787 Convention was authorized under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution, including Article V, didn't exist. We've never had an Article V Convention.
So I put it to you Mr. Druck--address your public inconsistency first before expecting me to address what you perceive is mine. You are on public record supporting the use of Article V with no if ands or buts. That means all of Article V which includes a convention to propose amendments, or an Article V Convention.
Why are you so inconsistent Mr. Druck? Why do you say the use of Article V won't solve our problems and won't work when you are on public record saying it will?
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: d.a.n. More dizzy tail chasing on your part. _____________________________________ Funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they are doing themselves. That's always a sure sign of a weak and failing arguments. When all else fails, attack the messenger, eh?
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: When quoting law suits you, you do so. _____________________________________ That's because the court cases are very relevant ([link edited for length] ).
Your frustration with these law suits is obviously their import and relevance. Especially since several of those court cases explicitly reference Article V and the rules of interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: When I quote law, you simply say it doesn't trump the Constitution. _____________________________________ That's rignt.
Simply quoting court cases and laws doesn't cut it, when they have little (or no) relevance.
What ever other evidence, court cases, or reasons you think you have found, they do not trump the U.S. Constitution. There are no court cases, there is nothing contradictory in the Constitution, or any rationale that trumps Article V of the U.S. Constitution. _____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: When I point out huge, gaping, festering holes in the Con, you ignore them and shift the focus to something else. _____________________________________ What gaping hole? What shifted focus?
You've done a good job of fear-mongering about Article V, but all of your arguments are very weak (if not totally lame).
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: The points you'll never address are: _____________________________________ Not true. I've addressed and knocked down every single strawman you have erected.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: The points you'll never address are: (1) Our problems stem from our federal government ignoring the Constitution. _____________________________________ The ignoring of the Constitution is a serious problem which we have no disagreement on whatsoever. Congress is ignoring Article V, despite 730+ Article V applications from all 50 states ( [link edited for length] ).
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: The points you'll never address are: . . . Amending it will only mean that an amended constitution will be ignored. _____________________________________ Some parts of the constitution will probably always be ignored, but that doesn't mean we should tolerate it, does it? So that logic is weak (if not totally lame). Corruption is only tolerated for so long (that is, until it becomes too painful). The Congress most likely will not be able to ignore the Constitution forever. A good example is the reversal of the D.C. gun ban after 30 years (a clear violation of the 2nd amendment). Anyway, we agree that the Constitution is being ignored. However, I do not agree that it should be tolerated or allowed to continue. So why condone it? Why try to rationalize it? Why accept violations and ignoring the Constitution? Why not uphold the Constitution? Why advocate continued ignoring of Article V of the Constitution?
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: Con Cons are dangerous because they cannot be controlled, no matter how much you try to side step and obfuscate the issue. _____________________________________ Dangerous?
Not true, because: (a) it requires 3/4 of all states to ratify any proposed amendments. Also, (b) there have been 679+ state constitutional conventions ( [link edited for length] ), and none of them were dangerous or out-of-control, were they? Thus, such fear-mongering on that basis is illogical. The only obfuscation is the attempts to fear-monger despite reasons (a) and (b) above.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: Anybody who looks for a second beyond the MSM propaganda sees the strength of the grip the Elite have on all elements of our government (duopoly RepubliCrat parties, courts, legislation, etc.). _____________________________________ You'll get no argument about the MSM.
I understand this all too well. However, the Main Stream Media (MSM) is no longer the only source of information, and the MSM hates that. The internet also contains a lot of lies and scams, but at least the truth is now out there too (even if it requires due diligence to research, cross-reference, validate, and verify the facts and the truth). _____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: Therefore, those of intellectual honesty cannot ignore that the outcome of a Con Con would be controlled by those who oppose freedom and liberty. _____________________________________ Not true.
Advocating the continued ignoring of Article V is advocating the violation of the supreme law of the land.
Your conclusions are not supported by the evidence, historical precedence, and ignores the fact that (a) it requires 3/4 of all states to ratify any proposed amendments. And (b) there have been 679+ state constitutional conventions( [link edited for length] ), and none of them were dangerous or out-of-control, were they? Thus, such conclusions are mere fear-mongering and illogical.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: And finally, I can only assume that the State Sovereignty Act has merit in your eyes because you Con men saw the need to pollute my article with your lies and propaganda. _____________________________________ No one is disputing state's sovereignty as outlined by the 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
States' sovereignty has little (if anything) to do with Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the states the power to amend the U.S. Constitution, provided 2/3 of the states request it, and provided 3/4 of the states agree to ratify any proposed amendment. To try to cloud the issue with the states' sovereignty is a perfect example of obfuscation, since no one is advocating the violation of the 9th and 10th amendments.
I support the 9th and 10th amendments too. There is no conflict between Article V and the 9th and 10th amendments. That states have had their faces rubbed in the dirt for decades by the severely bloated and over-reaching federal government, and some state governments are now deciding to start pushing back. Good.
As of Jan-2009, 14 state legislatures have now either passed or have introduced BILLs to publicly declare their state's sovereignty as set out in the 9th and 10th Amendments of the United States Constitution. Another 10-to-20 states are expected to introduce similar measures by the end of year 2009. This is undoubtedly fueled by the federal government's many abuses and ignoring the U.S. Constitution. So, can the states declare their sovereignty and tell the federal government to back off? Yes they can. In fact, similar to Article V, the Constitution was also designed to give the individual states other powers and rights. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states the following: _____________ The 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." _____________
So how does this conflict with Article V of the Constitution? It doesn't. It is very odd that you admit the federal government is ignoring the U.S. Constituion, yet you are advocating that Article V continue to be ignored. How do you explain this contradiction. Your own web-site states the following ( http://www.timefordan.com/ ):
He [Dan Druck, a.k.a. USAF Vet Dan] believes that Our federal government's intended role - its lawful role - is clearly defined by our Constitution: that ageless, living document created to evolve with the ever-changing times via Article V. So, how do you BOTH support and oppose Article V of the U.S. Constitution (see: http://www.timefordan.com/ ) at the same time.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: You are all despicable opportunists trying to deflect the positive energy behind the concept of State Sovereignty toward your goal of destroying the Constitution. _____________________________________ Such resorting to childisn name-calling and personal attacks is a sure sign that you are frustrated by the weakness and lameness of your arguments.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: You make me sick. _____________________________________ Thats' really professional and mature, eh?
Do you feel better now? That sort of behavior, frustration, and lack of composure certainly would have taken you far in Congress, eh?
Again, such resorting to childish name-calling and personal attacks is a sure sign that you are very frustrated by the weakness and lameness of your arguments.
If you were really so sure of your own position, you would have a quiet, calm confidence and composure and argue your case in a professional matter without resorting to childish name-calling. _____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: If you weren't so inept, you'd be dangerous. _____________________________________ How typical. Again, such childish personal attacks are a sure sign of your own frustration of the weakness and lameness of your own arguments. That is most likely what irritates you the most. Don't blame the messenger.
A little advice. If you want to avoid future similar frustration as you demonstrated above (by resorting to childish name-callingt), then try not to dig yourself into such a very deep hole trying to cloud the issues, obfuscate, crawfish, and defend a weak (if not totally lame) and illogical position (not to mention contradicting your own support of Article V on your own web-site ( http://www.timefordan.com/ ).
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: That makes you my enemy - and I don't use that term lightly. _________________________ How professional? Anyone who disagrees about Article V is your enemy? Yet, on your own web-site you promote Article V?
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: Under today's circumstances, anyone who looks at the facts for more than 5 minutes and still supports the con con is an enemy of our Republic. _________________________ Enemy this, enemy that. Anyone who advocates that Article V should not be ignored is an enemy, eh?
In closing, I am not your enemy merely because I wish Congress to stop ignoring Article V (and other parts) of the U.S. Constitution. Runnin' all around callin' everyone who disagrees "the enemy" is not helping your credibility whatsoever.
I've read parts of your web-site, and I agree with much of if, including the part which states ( http://www.timefordan.com/ ):
He [Dan Druck, a.k.a. USAF Vet Dan] believes that Our federal government's intended role - its lawful role - is clearly defined by our Constitution: that ageless, living document created to evolve with the ever-changing times via Article V.
So why are you now expressing so much disdain for others who support Article V of the U.S. Constitution? It clearly makes no logical sense to be BOTH for and against Article V.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Our problems stem from our federal government ignoring the Constitution. Amending it will only mean that an amended constitution will be ignored.
Con Cons are dangerous because they cannot be controlled, no matter how much you try to side step and obfuscate the issue.
Anybody who looks for a second beyond the MSM propaganda sees the strength of the grip the Elite have on all elements of our government (duopoly RepubliCrat parties, courts, legislation, etc.). Therefore, those of intellectual honesty cannot ignore that the outcome of a Con Con would be controlled by those who oppose freedom and liberty
Under today's circumstances, anyone who looks at the facts for more than 5 minutes and still supports the con con is an enemy of our Republic.
Actually, legally and technically speaking Mr. Druck, your opposition to obeying the Constitution makes you the enemy of the republic. As many of your fellow cohorts have recently found out, the police are watching your activities. I can tell you for a fact they aren't watching me or anyone else at FOAVC because we advocate obeying the Constitution.
I've answered your points before in this long debate. I'll therefore simply summarize: Point 1--the Government will simply disobey any amendments. Ridiculous on its face. Besides which as I pointed out if the amendments are designed and intended to forstall such an action by the government by empowering the people to be able to take actions they at this time no longer have, the government will not disobey the Constitution but the amendments will confir powers to the people (or the states) to prevent that action.
Point 2 "Con cons" are dangerous because they can't be controlled. The historic record of conventions simply doesn't back you up Dan Druck. Literally hundreds of conventions have been held in this country and none have ever proved to be a "danger." This also applies to conventions held in numerous other countries. Right now several nations and several states are either considering or actually holding conventions. Have you heard any screaming news stories about a convention seizing power? Not a peep. Why? Because it won't happen.
Point 3--the elites and Main Stream media will control a convention and therefore those "that oppose freedom and liberty" would prevail. First of all, "main stream" media is more and more becoming the Internet meaning sites like this are becoming the main stream media. Second, when candidates for delegates seek office I'm sure people like yourself will seek office so that you can protect us all from any threat to our freedom or liberty and that you will expose all who seek the office as puppets of the elite and MSM. Third, what proof have you got these people you describe are all threats to liberty and freedom? Up to your old prejudice tricks again aren't we Dan Druck? Labeling everyone who disagrees with you as elitist or threats to liberty or freedom? Nice try but you've shown in this column your information is neither reliable or true so how can we possibly accept you conclusion based on the false information is correct? News flash Mr. Druck. Just because you say something doesn't make it so. Even a liberal like yourself should realize that.
Finally, and I bet Dan Druck figured I just forgot about my last entry. You've not answered my challenges Mr. Druck. About your stated public position on Article V and how you favor it including an convention. Notice again everyone reading this exchange: for yet another time Dan Druck slips and slides away from the very issue he raises. When an answer is given to his challenge that defeats him, he doesn't counter it, meaning he conceeds the point, he just sputters to another ever more useless point. So it is the truth Dan Druck does support a convention and is on public record as stating that.
Am I the only one who realizes that since I demolished his Corpus argument that he hasn't presented a single reference to back up anything he says. He makes three points in this latest comment. Does he provide any citations to show a convention is dangerous--references to scholarly works when recognized experts have stated what he asserts? Does he even cite examples showing examples of the government actually vetoing the Constitution? Again, are there citations, references and so forth? He says the elites will take over and control a convention. Does he name names? No.
He just makes wild assertions and expects everyone will believe him because he is Dan Druck and he knows that when Dan Druck says something people will believe him because Dan Druck has said it. There are many words that desribe you Dan Druck, but modesty isn't one of them.
"Actually, legally and technically speaking Mr. Druck, your opposition to obeying the Constitution makes you the enemy of the republic. As many of your fellow cohorts have recently found out, the police are watching your activities. I can tell you for a fact they aren't watching me or anyone else at FOAVC because we advocate obeying the Constitution."
ROTFLMAO!!!! Are you serious??? That is too laughable to respond to!!!
"Point 1--the Government will simply disobey any amendments. Ridiculous on its face. Besides which as I pointed out if the amendments are designed and intended to forstall such an action by the government by empowering the people to be able to take actions they at this time no longer have, the government will not disobey the Constitution but the amendments will confir powers to the people (or the states) to prevent that action."
What are you proposing... duplicating the 10th Amendment??? It already does exactly what you described. The Feds ignore it. You've made my point - thanks.
"Point 2 "Con cons" are dangerous because they can't be controlled. The historic record of conventions simply doesn't back you up Dan Druck. Literally hundreds of conventions have been held in this country and none have ever proved to be a "danger." This also applies to conventions held in numerous other countries. Right now several nations and several states are either considering or actually holding conventions. Have you heard any screaming news stories about a convention seizing power? Not a peep. Why? Because it won't happen."
I've cited CJS 16, the history of this nation's only con con, CJ Burger's opinion, etc., that proves the dangers. I've cited Illinois as an example of a past con con gone awry. For you to use other nations as examples is idiotic as their laws and "constitution" are completely different.
"Point 3--the elites and Main Stream media will control a convention and therefore those "that oppose freedom and liberty" would prevail. First of all, "main stream" media is more and more becoming the Internet meaning sites like this are becoming the main stream media. Second, when candidates for delegates seek office I'm sure people like yourself will seek office so that you can protect us all from any threat...."
With the exception of Obama drones or Republican Party hacks, everyone knows that only those annointed by the RepubliCrat parties' bosses get elected. Look at what they did to Ron Paul. Your argument is lame, to say the least.
"Third, what proof have you got these people you describe are all threats to liberty and freedom? Up to your old prejudice tricks again aren't we Dan Druck? Labeling everyone who disagrees with you as elitist or threats to liberty or freedom?"
So you subscribe to the "grand illusion"? You believe that all the destructive actions by our elected public servants are because they are stupid instead of that they are beholding to enemies of the Constitution? ...the Republic? You'll not find many who agree with you on this. I stand by my position that, with all the clear-cut evidence that a con con is dangerous and will do nothing to cure our country's ills, those who continue to promote it are enemies of the Constitution.
"Finally, and I bet Dan Druck figured I just forgot about my last entry. You've not answered my challenges Mr. Druck. About your stated public position on Article V and how you favor it including an convention. Notice again everyone reading this exchange: for yet another time Dan Druck slips and slides away from the very issue he raises. "
The readers will decide.
"Am I the only one who realizes that since I demolished his Corpus argument that he hasn't presented a single reference to back up anything he says."
You demolished nothing.
"He makes three points in this latest comment. Does he provide any citations to show a convention is dangerous--references to scholarly works when recognized experts have stated what he asserts? Does he even cite examples showing examples of the government actually vetoing the Constitution?"
My points stand. Examples of the government vetoing the Constitution???? Are you friggin serious??? How about going to war with Iraq without a declaration from Congress? How about the bailouts??? How about wiretapping without a warrant? How about suspension of Habeous Corpus? These are just a few of thousands.
After that stupid assertion, I can no longer debate with you. You have finally discredited yourself completely. I learned a long time ago - never try to teach a donkey how to dance. You will fail and it only pisses off the donkey.
As a former candidate for Congress I'm sure you are familiar with U.S. Code. You might want to read 18 U.S.C. 2383 before telling me that what you are doing might not be considered a violation of federal criminal law. I don't think it many would disagree that you are trying to incite or assist in disobeying Article V of the United States Constitution.
Point 2. Regarding your the government will disobey any amendments to the Constitution bit. First, I must honestly say I feel sorry for you. You obviously are a man who believes with all his heart that if something is wrong, nothing should be done about it. You live in a nation that wouldn't even be nation if the people who lived then, or now, believed as you. You say we have a problem and the solution to it is to do nothing. Like I said I feel sorry for you.
As to proposing anything, I am not. The states on the other hands have proposed numerous amendment issues all designed with one purpose in mind: to regulate and control the federal government and if you'd bother to read the texts of these proposals you'd find they go a lot further than the Tenth Amendment--oh I forgot you don't read references given to you by others do you. You've already made up your mind. Sorry about that.
Point 3 "I've cited CJS 16, the history of this nation's only "con-con", CJ Burger's opinion, et., that proves the dangers. I've cited Illionois as an example of a past con con gone awry. For you to use other nations as examples is idiotic as their laws and "constitution" are completely different."
First of all you misquoted or misstated CJS 16 and the history of the 1787 convention. I have no idea who CJ Burger is. I assume you mean the Warren E Burger letter. You misquoted that too and again refused to read references. And as anyone can read above, you never came back to refute any of my proofs after I factually proved you wrong.
Second you've never mentioned the state of Illinois convention and given your sterling record of accuracy to date I doubt anyone would take your word regarding it anyway. As to other nations, given the fact they do have different laws and circumstances and still have no issue having conventions only reinforces our arguments, not diminishes it.
Point 4. As to your comments regarding elections, you never did refute the part of my saying convention delegates would be non partisan. Thus party influence will be minimal.
Point 5. I am not so neive to assume all political people in Washington D.C. are "good" people but you're going to have to do a lot better than smear campaigns tactics to convince me that by my urging the Constitution be obeyed that somehow that translates into my becoming an enemy of the Constitution while you urging it not be obeyed somehow translates into making you its friend. By your logic you will be at your most supportive of the Constitution when none of it is obeyed. With friends like you for the Constitution, who needs enemies?
You say I haven't demolished any of your points. You cite court rulings but lie about the real contents of a book that when revealed actually show an entirely different context than you presented. You cite a letter that when actual public record is revealed shows the supposed author of the letter had an entirely different public record on the issue than you say he had. You cite a myth about the 1787 convention that public record shows is a lie, plain and simple. Trust me, people don't believe someone who lies to them in order to try and persuade them to their point of view. And when you do that it is you who demolishes your own argument. I just helped by showing what you were lying about.
As to vetoing the Constitution. 1. There was a declaration from Congress. I will grant it did not say it was a declaration of war in its title but Congress did vote and the Constitution does not specify a specific language or form for a war declaration. 2.While I agree the government should not be in the bailout business, the Constitution does grant Congress the power to regulate commerce. A bailout is not a good idea but it is not a violation of the Constitution for the government to loan money--just ask any college student you know. As to the rest, well you provide concrete examples, dates, places, names etc. Then I will read your citations and study your evidence then respond. The areas you cite are complex law and frankly, you've not proven to me that you very capable in that field.
Now it sounds like you are finally winding down and will "no longer debate with me." So I guess that means you're done making a fool of yourself by being proved factually wrong on nearly every single point you've put forward. Pitty. I was just getting used to the idea of ripping you down every day. We've been pen pals for so long I really am going to miss it. Getting up every morning, opening my email and reading the latest installment of the Dan Druck Funny Pages has really been a thrill in my life. So is going to the dentist and having a tooth pulled without novocaine but frankly if it was a choice between having to deal with your stream of lies that I've proved are inaccurate and a dentist....I'll take the dentist. At least he's honest.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: The points you'll never address are: (1) Our problems stem from our federal government ignoring the Constitution. Amending it will only mean that an amended constitution will be ignored. (2) . . . (3) . . . ______________________________________ False, those things were all addressed several times. So, the solution to ignoring the Constitution is to ignore it some more? That's some bass-akwards logic.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: The points you'll never address are: (1) . . . (2) Con Cons are dangerous because they cannot be controlled, no matter how much you try to side step and obfuscate the issue. (3) . . . ______________________________________ False again, since those things were all addressed several times.
Nonsense, because: (a) It requires 3/4 of the states to ratifiy any proposed amendments. (b) There have been 679+ state constitutional violations between 1776 and 1917 and none were runaway conventions. (c) The benefits outweigh the perceived dangers. (d) The lame example of a single problematic Illinios state constitutional convention (out of 679 between 1776 and 1917) is lame to say the least (1 out of 679 is about 1/6 of one percent). (e) Nothing, no other court cases, or any so-called letters from Warren Burger, trump the U.S. Constitution.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: The points you'll never address are: (1) . . . (2) . . . (3) Anybody who looks for a second beyond the MSM propaganda sees the strength of the grip the Elite have on all elements of our government (duopoly RepubliCrat parties, courts, legislation, etc.). Therefore, those of intellectual honesty cannot ignore that the outcome of a Con Con would be controlled by those who oppose freedom and liberty Under today's circumstances, anyone who looks at the facts for more than 5 minutes and still supports the con con is an enemy of our Republic. ______________________________________ More nonsense, because: (a) The MSM does not control the convention. (b) Congress, after calling a peremptory convention, does not control it. (c) The two-party duopoly will only grow more corrupt if allowed to continue to ignore Article V. (d) Besides, the states want it, and that is their constitutional right. (e) What you think does not trump the constitutional rights of the states. (f) Calling people who support Article V are not an "enemy of the Republic". Saying so is more bass-ackwards logic. Not everyone who diagrees with Dan Druck (a.k.a. USAF Vet Dan) is an enemy of the Republic.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: . . . anyone who looks at the facts for more than 5 minutes and still supports the con con is an enemy of our Republic. _____________________________________ Heil !
So, wanting to uphold the Constitution makes people an enemy of the Republic. That's some interesting (if not totally circular and bass-ackwarkds) logic. WARNING: According to Dan Druck (a.k.a. USAF Vet Dan), if you support the U.S. Constitution, you are an enemy of the Republic! Geez, that's some of the most asinine, hysterical rhetoric I've seen in a long time. What's scarier is that it's coming from some one running for Congress. Yikes! Fortunately, enough voters were smart enough to not let that happen. Kudos to the people of Illinois for keeping nutcases out of office.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: You are all despicable opportunists trying to deflect the positive energy behind the concept of State Sovereignty toward your goal of destroying the Constitution. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: You make me sick. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: If you weren't so inept, you'd be dangerous. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: That makes you my enemy - and I don't use that term lightly. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: I'm sick of you ducking the points made that blow holes in your lame position. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: Under today's circumstances, anyone who looks at the facts for more than 5 minutes and still supports the con con is an enemy of our Republic. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: Both are inexcusable, but I suspect the latter is the case and that makes you the lower than whale crap. _____________________________________ Yep. That sort of looney-tunes, childish name-calling above is doing wonders for your credibility.
Such resorting to childisn name-calling and personal attacks is a sure sign that you are frustrated by the weakness and lameness of your arguments. That perhaps is what really frustrates you, eh? If you really had a credible case to debate, you probably wouldn't feel the need to resort to childish name-calling.
___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: A final note: Just because the Constitution has the provision for a con con doesn't mean that we should do it... or that opposing it makes one anti-constitutional. ___________________ HHHMMMMMMmmmmmm . . . That's some more bass-awkwards, ciculare logic. Most people would intuitively say that someone who advocates the continued ignoring of Article V is who is actually anti-constitutional.
If you don't like Article V, why not work to get it legally changed and ratified, instead of trying to usurp and ignore the Constitution?
Your simultaneous support and ignoring of Article V is illogical (wierd actually) to say the least. But then, based on the childish name-calling (see above), illogical dialogue, and hysterical fear-mongering above, it's really no wonder.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Gee pen pal, I'd thought we'd finished. You can't even be honest about not wanting to debate. Seems like just yesterday you said something like, "I can no longer debate with you." Oh yeah, it was yesterday.
As to your nearly six month old Baldwin column. I have no response. Mr. Baldwin wrote the column. You didn't. If he wishes to join the conversation I will debate with him. It is clear you have run out of original thoughts, assertions and so forth. You simply copy in a column and expect response. That not only doesn't take much time but clearly demonstrates you have no original thinking left. In short, your action shows I have defeated you.
Now I welcome a conversation with Mr. Baldwin. So far, he's run from every attempt I've made to contact him. Phone messages, emails, letters and so forth. I've even offered to come on his radio program and discuss the matter. Not even the courtesy of a response from Mr. Baldwin. Perhaps he will change his mind.
But I refuse to debate something that you have not written with you. It is one thing to use the Baldwin opinion column as a reference; it is another to suggest that somehow you speak for Mr. Baldwin which, I presume, by this submission, you infer you do. I will not indulge your arrogance. If you wish to cite something said in the column and state an opinion on that matter, that is fine. We'll debate. I'll win because the fact you now are grabbing at an opinion piece as the basis of your argument proves you have no facts left and when that happens, you lose the debate, regardless of whether it's this or any other debate. And if you notice Mr. Baldwin has no citations in his column, only unproven speculation. Not exactly a difficult thing to knock down in a debate---that what the author has said is his own personal opinion and not documented fact and therefore cannot be relied upon as either truth, accuracy or proven fact. This become fish in a barrel time when one realizes there are at least two major factual errors in the opinion piece on which Baldwin then bases his comments which can be refuted by documented verified public record.
So, either come out with your own thoughts and let's get it on or do us all a favor and retire from the field.
My above comment starting with "Gee pen pal" were in reference to a posting by USAF Vet Dan alais Dan Druck who posted as a response to my column a full, complete Internet column written by Chuck Baldwin about six months ago. Clearly posted at the bottom of that column was a copyright symbol. Mr. Baldwin has allowed that his column may be reproduced in full (a rarity) by anyone wishing to do so but may not be done so where advertising is done. In short, Mr. Baldwin doesn't mind you copying his work so long as you or the site itself are not advertising and thus making money. This prohibition and exception is clearly posted at the bottom of Mr. Baldwin's columns. Fair use rules allow for the quoting of parts of Mr. Baldwin's columns, under any reasonable circumstances including being posted on Nolan Chart but copyright laws clearly forbid the wholesale posting of Mr. Baldwin's columns except as permitted by Mr. Baldwin and allowed by Nolan Chart. In short, it's okay to quote a sentence or two of Mr. Baldwin; it's not okay to import his entire column.
Nolan Chart has advertising and that advertising keeps this important site on the Internet. Nolan Chart has posted rules about the use of copyrighted material and these prohibit what Dan Druck did. It was a violation of both Nolan Chart rules and the copyright permission of Mr. Baldwin. As soon as I saw the column, I reported it via email to Mr. Thiessen the owner of the site. Mr. Thiessen later asked me to submit the complaint through the formal system located at the bottom of the posting itself so that he could verify it. During that time period, I made my response you read above.
As a result of my posting, Mr. Thiessen removed the offending submission by Dan Druck.
The actions of Mr. Druck could have caused this entire site to have been shut down due to legal action on the part of Mr. Baldwin. This is how inaccurate Mr. Druck is. He doesn't even bother to read this site's own policies on posting material and everyone of you reading this or who use this cite to post your own opinions were in danger of losing that privilege because Mr. Druck doesn't believe he has to play by the rules nor does he even bother to read them.
And this is the man who asks you to place your faith in him by believing what he says about the Constitution and Article V. Think about it.
Since I know Chuck Baldwin and have fought against the con con with him for about 15 years, I knew he'd have no problem with the repost. This issue is between Walt and me. I respect that Walt wants to have all the "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed.
For you to use this issue in an attempt to discredit me is a reflection of your poor character. For you to use it in an attempt to discredit the points I made in opposition to your Con Con con demonstrates your desperation.
Not only will I post Chuck's article, I'll post his permission to do so when he gets back to me. He and the tens of thousands who respect his opinion oppose your con job as well.
The list of childish name-calling and personal attackes (to subsitute weak and failing arguments) is growing . . . _____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: You are all despicable opportunists trying to deflect the positive energy behind the concept of State Sovereignty toward your goal of destroying the Constitution. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: You make me sick. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: If you weren't so inept, you'd be dangerous. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: That makes you my enemy - and I don't use that term lightly. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: I'm sick of you ducking the points made that blow holes in your lame position. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: Under today's circumstances, anyone who looks at the facts for more than 5 minutes and still supports the con con is an enemy of our Republic. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: Both are inexcusable, but I suspect the latter is the case and that makes you the lower than whale crap. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: You and your little band of con men are the only ones who believe your BS. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: For you to use this issue in an attempt to discredit me is a reflection of your poor character. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: I won the debate. _____________________________________
Such childisn name-calling and personal attacks is a sure sign of frustration from the weakness and lameness of one's own arguments.
Mr. Druck, my response to your posting shows a very important point, one you obviously missed. Whether it is the posting rules on Nolan Chart or the terms and conditions in the United States Constitution, you have shown you have respect for neither.
Mr. Thiessen has a web site. It has rules. Those rules are clearly posted in the terms of use policy and when you write a response in this page or anywhere else in Nolan Chart they are in plain site for reference.They require a permission by the author in order to post a copyrighted piece and you didn't obey that rule.
The Constitution has rules just like this website. You believe rules are simply to be disobeyed when you don't happen to agree with them. You urge the rules be disobeyed be it calling a convention when the rules say it must happen or posting a column when the rules say it can't; if you don't agree with it, then you simply urge the rule be ignored. Your action on this website you prove me right on this.
Now, when you break the rules, you pay for doing so. If you do around me, I make sure you pay for it. If by breaking the rules and getting caught for it you think it discredits you, that's your problem. You made the choice and opened yourself up for whatever conclusion I wanted to draw regarding that choice. If you can't stand the heat, don't go into the kitchen.
I'm not desperate to prove anything against you. I will always win because I've the law of the Constitution on my side. The laws says I'm right. Period. Whatever argument you present, whatever columnists you publish, the Constitution trumps that. So I will always prevail.
As to publishing his column here, I've already given you my answer. I will not respond to you because you are not making the comment. If Chuck Baldwin decides to comment and defend his column or even more recent events, fine. I suspect in a day or so he's going to want to anyway so let him.
Again, one issue has nothing to do with the other. Your position is so defenseless that you are grasping at anything you can put your hands on.
Your ridiculous proposal to change the Constitution in order to fix our country's ills is akin to changing the tire to fix the power steering pump. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution, except for the fact that We, the People have allowed our elected servants to ignore and usurp it. Altering it won't change that. It will only open up the likelihood that it would be gutted by the same forces whose puppets in DC do their bidding. To expect anything else is to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
All your ranting, raving, and endless diatribe won't make the con con smell any different than the turd that it is... no matter how you try to spin it.
I'll let you con men have the last word as I've said everything I have to say... ten times over.
Good luck with your efforts to con America. Thank God they're not THAT stupid.
Gee folks, I guess Chuck turned him down. No copyrighted Baldwin column.
Let's look at Mr. Druck's latest position. He states the government is ignoring the Constitution but as always never tells us how "We, the People" having "allowed our elected servants to ignore and usurp it [the Constitution] are to reclaim the Constitution. Now, according to Mr. Druck we're idiots if we put in place amendments that stop the government--excuse me--"our elected servants" from ignoring and usurping the Constitution because they, our servants, will ignore them. Notice he never tells us exactly how else we are to get them to stop usurping and ignoring the Constitution. In other words he never gives a solution of his own, original, 100 percent Dan Druck thinking. (I know saying solution and Dan Druck thinking is an oxymoron but bear with me.)
I suspect his secret solution involves the very heavy use of harsh language. And I'll tell you something else--he's been asked before and he'll slip slide away from this: Alright Mr. Druck let's hear you alternative plan, step by step, how do we fix the problem you say exists using whatever tools, legal of course, that the Constitution provides us to have our "elected servants" no longer ursurp or ignore the Constitution? And by the way, in answer to his master plan whatever that may be, if the government ignores the constitution what's to stop them from ignoring the Dan Druck master plan as equally well?
Notice he also says a convention will open up "the likelihood" of control of these sinster, yet always, unamed forces, but again offers no proof, no facts, no names, no references nothing to prove his assertion. How we can be certain that his solution, whatever that may be, will not open up the likelihood even more than an amendment process which, as we all know, has numerous constitutional barriers designed to prevent the very control by anyone Mr. Druck says might happen. What barriers and guarantees does he know about in his master plan that apparently the rest of us poor, sappy mortals are yet unaware of?
After all, if Mr. Druck's brilliant plan was so effective doesn't it follow he'd have told his friend Chuck about it along with everyone else in the world and all those people seeing the brilliance of his plan would have marched in lock step and already implimented it or at least attempted to do so? In short Mr. Druck if you've got a solution to this problem other than using the amendment process, what in the hell are you waiting for?
Notice Mr. Druck now refers to part of the Constitution of the United States as a "turd." Is this how you honor that document Mr. Druck, you who are on public record as supporting Article V as what got this nation to its greatness? You consider the Constitution to be a "turd?" I am tempted to say a lot more here but instead I will simply move on.
And now comes the oldie but goodie, "I'll let you con men have the last word." We've heard this so many times, it's getting old. Trust me, Dan Druck won't stop with this last comment. He'll be back to entertain us with more uplifting thoughts on how he feels about the Constitution. I can hardly wait for the next installment of the Dan Druck Funny Papers.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
![[link edited for length]](http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/CR%20127%20%20%20Pg%2021538%20%20Yr%201981-Summary%20of%20Applications.JPG){kind=link}