An Article V Convention: Exposing The Really Bad Alternative Ideas
This article discusses the really bad alternative ideas to an Article V Convention by Bill Walker
(libertarian)
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Many who knowingly support the government's on-going veto of the Constitution by opposing an Article V Convention call give different reasons for opposing an Article V Convention. Most say they have better ideas such as the Tenth Amendment movement or the continental congress 2009.
In fact, the Tenth Amendment movement and the continental congress 2009 pose more danger to our nation than an Article V Convention ever could. Fortunately, none of these ideas has really taken hold as political solutions to the legitimate problems of this nation. All these movements claim constitutional language supporting their particular movement. The fact is none of these half-baked ideas is contained within the Constitution not as their supporters envision them anyway. In reality, these movements are nothing more than ill conceived ideas formulated by those who choose to read what they want to see into the Constitution instead of reading what it actually states.
There is no question the national government threatens us. The word "federal" no longer applies to the government. Federal is defined as, "of or relating to a state formed by the consolidation of several states which retain limited residuary powers of government under the common sovereignty of the new state." As the national government is sucking political power of all descriptions from the people and the states, obviously no "limited residuary powers" remains for either. However this fact does not justify the outlandish and bluntly, dangerous ideas advanced by the above named movements as "solutions" to this problem. Supposedly these ideas are intended to "return the Constitution" to the people. In fact, if these ideas were in place, they would not return the Constitution to the people; they will cause the nation to collapse.
The Tenth Amendment movement advocates say the national government threat can be solved by exclusive use of the Tenth Amendment. The solution, they say, is having the states assert themselves under the "authority" of the Tenth Amendment. The movement does not support using any other part of the Constitution to achieve its goals, including an Article V Convention. In short, our way or the highway. Despite the fact the Tenth Amendment in no way so states, Tenth Amendment advocates maintain the amendment gives the states the right to nullify federal laws, court rulings and federal regulations. In short, the "right" to decide which parts of the Constitution the state will choose to obey. Advocates have convinced many conservative state legislatures to pass non-binding resolutions in support of state nullification of federal laws thus giving the illusion of state support to this idea. Of course, these supporters ignore the fact "non-binding" resolutions has no force of law for either for national or state government meaning the state officials involved don't have to worry about violating federal criminal law for actions they know are illegal. Thus, despite assertions by the movement to the contrary, the movement has effectively accomplished nothing.
The Tenth Amendment movement seeks only to nullify federal gun control laws and other select pieces of federal legislation this ultra right movement finds politically repugnant. However, once a weed takes root there is no way to ensure how it will grow. Hence, once the states actually believe they have such authority there is no telling what constitutional or legal mischief that seed will sprout, or in what direction its weed will grow. While those in the Tenth Amendment movement may have certain limited political goals in mind, once the states accept they can nullify federal laws the political disasters are endless.
The Tenth Amendment contains no such procedural limits or guarantees as are found in Article V to effect change in the Constitution. Indeed the Tenth Amendment contains no procedure whatsoever. As such, the federal courts have repeatedly stated the Tenth Amendment is a statement of constitutional principle rather than binding law, which, of course, Tenth Amendment supporters reject. Instead, they advocate the states' "right" to nullify federal laws. There are no federal or state court rulings that support this position. For these reasons, if the Tenth Amendment movement gains enough support to implement its agenda, its supporters would be free to write whatever "procedures" they want without any legal basis whatsoever. We will have a runaway Tenth Amendment. This runaway amendment will be lead by non-elected leaders who believe the states can nullify whatever federal laws they want. They will act believing the Tenth Amendment empowers them to make whatever changes they want in the Constitution without bothering with any other part of the Constitution such as the amendment procedure that might stand in the way. These unelected leaders will maintain control of their movement by forbidding any election of the people.
The reason the courts have stated the Tenth Amendment is a principle of the Constitution rather than binding law is because the principle enshrined in the Tenth Amendment is enforced as binding law elsewhere in the Constitution. Examples of binding law include Article V as well as the compact clause. With these powers, the states can easily regain balance to make the national government a federal government once more. But Tenth Amendments advocates oppose using these already constitutionally in-place state powers saying all that is required is the Tenth Amendment and "obey the Constitution as is" which, of course, means using Article V and compact clause. They ignore the fact the Tenth Amendment also limits the states in assumption of federal powers, one of which is the assignment by the Constitution to the federal government through the courts and the president, to determine what is constitutional and thus have the power of nullification of federal as well as state laws. Therefore if followed as it is written, the Tenth Amendment by itself cannot do the job its advocates say they desire.
Unlike Article V, the Tenth Amendment prescribes no limits nor outlines no separation of powers as Article V does. It does express a principle of separation of powers between the national government, the states and the people. However it does not itemize out what these powers are nor, more importantly, describe who or by what mechanism, determination of which powers shall be assigned to which political group. In short, the Tenth Amendment lacks an enforcement mechanism as well as an execution procedure to carry out the terms of the amendment. The dangers of such a wide-open amendment are obvious. Given there are 50 states, it follows each state will choose which federal laws to nullify in 50 different ways as well as assigning which powers go to its particular group of citizens. No citizen will know which federal laws, or more importantly, which rights, apply to him at any given time in any given state. Likewise, the federal government will be helpless to ensure that any laws it passes, however legitimate under the authority of the Constitution will be obeyed by the entire nation. Thus civil disobedience will be rampant ultimately leading to an entire breakdown of our civil and criminal legal system; in short anarchy.
In contrast to an unrestricted Tenth Amendment, Article V describes precisely what a convention is as well as its purpose. It describes a review process of the convention's actions meaning any proposed amendment must be reviewed and approved before that amendment proposal takes effect. Article V describes exactly who may propose amendments, who causes a convention call, what the relationship of any proposed amendment is to the Constitution and ensures the Constitution remains supreme to the proposed amendment rather than the reverse. Article V describes what amount of support a proposed amendment must have in order to be proposed as well as describing how much support much exist in order for the proposed amendment to become part of the Constitution. In short, Article V provides an orderly, legal and constitutional means to effect permanent change in the Constitution while allowing for full review of the issue or issues proposed before doing so. Moreover, at any time during the process should the proposal fail to get the necessary support, it dies, meaning if it is rejected by the American people that ends the matter. Article V also allows for alternatives as to proposal and review and finally permits other proposals to be made at a later date that have the power to completely remove the original proposal should it prove over time unsound. In short, the process provides safeguards designed to ensure it does not get out of control; the Tenth Amendment has no such safeguards.
In answer to this lack of procedure Tenth Amendment, supporters maintain they have a "duty" under the Tenth Amendment to overthrow what they view as unconstitutional actions by the federal government. The words "duty to nullify" do not exist in the Tenth Amendment. As such, if such power does exist, it must come from a judicial interpretation of the amendment and as noted already, no court, federal or state, has ever made such interpretation. Hence, without a court ruling stating such implied duty or power, it cannot legally exist. Tenth Amendment advocates get around this massive obstacle by simply ignoring it.
Tenth Amendment advocates say an Article V Convention would become a "runaway" convention, removing our present Constitution and our rights. They ignore the safeguards noted above in order to levy such ridiculous charges. However, when compared to the idea of 50 runaway states each deciding on its own which parts of the Constitution will apply to them an if such a threat existed all, Article V Convention pales to nothing.
What really is behind this Tenth Amendment movement are a bunch of right wing extremists with a very short political agenda ---guns, federal gun regulations and taxes they disagree with. Their agenda amounts to a sliver of the legitimate set of constitutional laws and regulations the states and federal provide to help keep our nation safe and operating, as responsible governments are obligated to do. As such, when pressed, Tenth Amendment advocates cannot even cite a single example by the federal government that is unconstitutional. True, they may THINK or SAY something is unconstitutional, but that is very different from PROVING something IS unconstitutional. If something truly IS unconstitutional, it is highly likely the courts have already declared it so thus redressing the issue. When confronted to bring proof therefore, indisputable, irrefutable, documented proof that what federal actions they say is are in fact unconstitutional, these advocates always avoid doing so. Conclusion? What these Tenth Amendment advocates say is unconstitutional is almost certainly constitutional. Political agendas and unproven opinions may be great for debates but are hardly a firm basis on which to decide to overthrow our constitutional form of government.
How do you prove something is irrefutably unconstitutional and that the government has acted in an unconstitutional manner as alleged? An official admission by a public official officially representing the political body of the national government in question would obviously be the best answer. For example, FOAVC received an official admission by the Solicitor General of the United States in his official capacity also acting as attorney of record for the Congress of the United States as a matter of public record. The Solicitor General admitted before the Supreme Court that the government was in criminal violation of federal law for refusing to obey the Constitution. The Solicitor General admitted for the public record that all member of Congress had violated his or her oath of office, a federal offense. He admitted a sufficient number of states had applied for a convention call to satisfy Article V. He admitted that such a call was peremptory. He admitted a convention call was based on a simple numeric count of applying states with no other terms or conditions. Such terms or conditions would be applying for the same amendment issue or having the same identical words in each application or submitting the applications within a given period. Thus, when FOAVC says Congress has acted unconstitutionally as well as violating federal criminal law, it bases its claim on verifiable public record proving the government has already admitted what is alleged. None of these movements in question can refer to any similar public records or admissions to prove their assertions.
The Tenth Amendment movement with its half-baked idea of nullification wants to throw all federal laws, regulations and court rulings into the air and let them fall to earth while the states individually take pot shots at them. Remember, these are the same people who have stated for years that if a state Article V Convention is held, the STATES will scrap our present Constitution, remove all our rights and impose a new Constitution. So, if they believe the states will do this with a convention, what do you think they believe the states will do with the power of nullification they advocate? Of course, just like their nullification argument, these Tenth Amendment advocates have no proof to support their arguments. This nation deserves better than to place its faith in a movement that can't even provide evidence to support its claims and suggests a course of action that is so obviously dangerous only a fool would assume it will not end in disaster for this nation.
If there any doubt as to the hypocrisy of the Tenth Amendment movement, recent events expose it. Because of Tenth Amendment lobbying efforts, the Montana state legislature passed a law nullifying federal gun laws in 2009. Recently supporters of this state legislation and the Tenth Amendment movement announced that a federal lawsuit has been filed defend the state law. Query. How can these nullification supporters say the states have the right of nullification, that is the ultimate right of deciding what is and what is not constitutional and then use FEDERAL court decisions as the basis of their argument or plead their nullification case before a FEDERAL court? Should not state courts that make such a decision and are the basis of legal argument? Have not nullification advocates completely nullified their own position by acknowledging with submission of a FEDERAL lawsuit on the validity of a state nullification law to a FEDERAL court that the federal government ultimately is supreme? Are they not acknowledging the federal government has the right to make such a decision by submission of the lawsuit to that court? If nullification is a state right and these people actually believe in the principle of the Tenth Amendment as they interpret it, then it follows state nullification laws cannot, under the terms of the Tenth Amendment, be reviewed by the federal courts as the Tenth Amendment assigns nullification to the states alone. Doesn't the act of submitting the state law to federal review and decision imply, if not outright state, that a state's power of nullification will be governed by federal decision ultimately meaning it is the federal government, not the states, which determines what federal laws can be nullified, not the states?
However hypocritical the Tenth Amendment movement may be, it is not the most dangerous movement in this country. The most dangerous movement to this nation clearly is the "continental congress 2009" which was held in Illinois in 2009 but continues on to this day. This "idea", which in reality is nothing more than an elaborate income tax evasion scheme agenda by convicted income tax evasion scammer, Bob Schulz. It is presented under the guise of patriotism and attempting to "bring the nation back to the people." In fact, this "congress" is as far from patriotism and loyalty to this country as one can get.
In a November 19, 2009 email, for example, Schulz said this "congress" decided to recommend that, "The Civic Actions recommended by the Congress for the People to end the Income Tax fraud include for the People to contact their local sheriff and demand cooperation with the citizenry to provide protection from (unlawful) federal and state tax enforcement actions (including fraudulent, non-judicial "administrative" IRS liens and levys [sic]), that citizens prepare to replace or otherwise recall or impeach any sheriff who refuses to protect their local citizens from rogue federal agents acting under color of law,' and for citizens to prepare themselves to withhold their monies as a means to secure Redress."
Obviously having people "withhold their monies" means having people violate federal income tax law by not paying federal income tax. By holding the "continental congress 2009" under the guise of a patriotic event supposedly intended to "bring the nation back to the people," Bob Schulz got a lot of people who went as delegates to believe this was the real purpose of the congress. Many spoke out publicly about this purpose. In fact, it was all part of the fraud. The real purpose was to engage in criminal activity by urging citizens not pay federal income tax as well as urging citizens unlawfully remove elected or appointed county officials who refuse to arrest income tax agents. In doing this, Schulz managed to have a great many patriotic, if not misguided individuals, put their name to a criminal act in the form of a conspiracy to interfere with or violate federal income tax laws by "voting" for so-called resolutions and instructions supposedly written by the "congress."
Some may suggest this was a "congress" and therefore immune from such criminal charges under the speech and debate clause of the Constitution. That clause only applies to legally elected members of the Congress, not private individuals meeting at a resort. Just because this group met in a resort in Illinois, called itself a "congress" and "voted" on these proposals and does not mean they are immune from any applicable state or federal criminal laws. Indeed, if they took the time to actually read the Constitution, they will find the speech and debate clause does not make members of Congress immune from such laws either. Finally, despite the arrogance of this "congress" to the contrary, this group has no right to "instruct" federal or state officials how they shall conduct their lawful official business. That job is assigned to the courts by federal and state constitutions.
The "continental congress 2009" was not content with a single dangerous idea. In the same email, another resolution dealing with the Second Amendment states, "The arms resolution calls for the citizenry to coordinate with their local county Sheriff in establishing a Constitutional Militia inherently separate from the state National Guard. Such militia would be a constitutional defense force, comprising all citizenry capable of bearing arms and under proper authority, in defense of themselves and the states.'"
In short, Bob Schulz urged creation an army separate of either federal or state control to carry out the resolutions of his "continental congress 2009." Is it any wonder many of the "delegates" of this sham walked out during the convention? Again, unlike the Article V Convention, there are no rules governing this "inherently separate Militia" i.e., Schulz's private army. Obviously, the purpose of this illegal army would be first to remove those county sheriffs who would not go along with Schulz in his plan to conquer (and make no doubt of this word) conquer the United States. For what other purposes would you create an armed militia with orders to overthrow elements of the current, legally elected or appointed, state governments?
Had these "ideas" remained in the proposal stage and been ultimately rejected by the delegates to this "congress" then perhaps it could be argued that some good did come out of this "congress" allowing for the free, if obviously politically biased, discussion on many issues of this nation. Instead, these "ideas" of armed military revolt against our legitimate governments and the supporting criminal income tax avoidance schemes became official statements on the "congress" website. As such, there can be no doubt those delegates "voting" for these pre-arranged "ideas" did so knowingly. Not counting state laws for attempting to remove sheriffs from office (which vary from state to state) these "delegates" to can face the following: insurrection and rebellion, (10 years); advocating the overthrow of our government, (20 years); seditious conspiracy, (20 years); conspiracy, (5 years); solicitation to commit a crime, (20 years) and impeding a federal officer, (6 years) for a total of 60 years in federal prison if the federal government so chooses to press charges.
For the most obvious of reasons that armed revolt and criminal acts never have been proven to be a solution to any problem, this very, very bad idea of the "continental congress 2009" should be emphatically rejected and anything even remotely connected by Bob Schulz utterly ignored any time in the future.
While it is blatantly obvious, the following needs to be said: unlike Article V, there are no regulations or rules governing whatever Bob Schulz and his followers might do with their militia. There is no guarantee they will respect the rights of citizens guaranteed in the Constitution. There is nothing to prove the Bob Schulz Militia and Anti-tax movement will not take away our rights, all led by Bob Schulz.
Fortunately, the American people are a lot smarter than these movements believe. None of these movements has accomplished a thing. They either have failed, are failing or will soon fail. Non-binding resolutions they have had states pass will soon expire if they have not already; lack of public support for creating of a militia will soon expose the fakery of that charlatan; the protest meetings will grow smaller and eventually die away as people come to realize they accomplish nothing.
So, what is left? The legitimate problem of an out of control, unresponsive national government requiring a permanent solution remains. Obviously, using what the Constitution does provide is the only answer. An Article V Convention, unlike these discredited, dangerous and politically useless ideas will get the job done. Currently, there is already a half dozen or more proposed amendments already submitted by the states, which obviously will permanently limit the national government.
If a convention were held right now and just these amendment proposals were put into place in the Constitution, the following would exist: No federal income tax; a balanced budget, direct election of all federal officials including the executive; state review of all federal court decisions; a national referendum, initiative, recall procedure allowing voter review of bureaucratic as well as legislative acts of Congress; term limits, elimination of unfunded federal mandates, resolution of conflicting state and federal laws, elimination of federal influence in state schools, limited judicial terms, line item veto, revision of Article V to allow amendment proposal by the states, elimination of revenue sharing, a right to life amendment, allowance of secular school funding, allowance of school prayers, an amendment regulating the selection of federal judges, elimination of taxes on debts, refunds, securities, as well as vehicles and fuel, alteration in treaty power and procedures, a review of the validity of the 14th Amendment, elimination or review of federal mandate wage/hour regulations and elimination or review of unconditional public and/or federal funds.
FOAVC does not endorse any of these amendment proposals. However, it is quite clear by a simple reading of their applications, the states have moved much further in their Article V applications and amendment issues than any of the above false ideas have even conceived. Unlike the non-binding resolutions, these applications are binding and remain in perpetuity. Based on the amendments already asked for by the states, coupled with the 200 years of proof that amendments work to solve such problems in this nation, there is clearly no question but that an Article V Convention will restore the balance between the people, the states and the national government thus reestablishing a true federal government system.
It has been said an Article V Convention "is a bad idea." This is a lie. A convention is not an "idea." It is a constitutional mandate. Those who say they support the Constitution and mean it must therefore support a convention because Article V is as much a part of the Constitution as the Tenth Amendment or the First Amendment on which these other warped ideas are based. The bad ideas are the Tenth Amendment movement and continental congress 2009, which are based on twisted, illegitimate interpretations of the Constitution by a few right wing extremists. How can this author say these ideas are twisted and illegitimate? Because the Constitution, which they all say they support gives the job of interpretation to the courts, not them. All of them reject the courts' interpretations meaning they reject the Constitution they say they support and no court has ever supported their particular view of that document.
These are dangerous ideas easily can become runaway movements utterly without control or even respect for the Constitution. Moreover, there is no question that extreme radical elements of our society will take control of these movements for their own political purposes without input, election or control of the people because they already have.
Only an Article V Convention is regulated by the Constitution. It is the only method of change actually endorsed by the Founding Fathers as they created it in the original Constitution. It is the only method that guarantees the people will have a say by election of delegates in open, public elections as to how a convention is conducted. It is the only method whereby the ideas and proposals will be debated not only at the convention but also during the election process for delegates. Unlike the above mentioned bad ideas whose twisted logic and distorted interpretations of the Constitution were conspired in smoke filled back rooms, the convention process will be conducted in the open sunshine of public opinion as the Founders intended.
The ability of an Article V is well known. It has a proven record of accomplishment in solving our nation's problems. Even its opponents admit that unlike these other discredited ideas, a convention can solve the problem. Now is the time to use proven solutions such as amendments to permanently solve the national government problem instead of relying on half-baked, dangerous ideas that can ultimately lead to anarchy or rebellion.
Reject these dangerous ideas. Help make 2010 the year of the Article V Convention. AVCY2KX.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
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: 2010-01-16 05:58:58
It's hubris on your part to claim, "Fortunately, none of these ideas has really taken hold as political solutions to the legitimate problems of this nation", when in fact your own Article V proposal has not achieved any more political traction than their ideas have.
Also, as one who has written against using an Article V convention at this time, I take issue with your claim: "It has been said an Article V Convention 'is a bad idea.'" To the contrary, critics like me do not say that Article V Conventions as an idea-construct is a bad idea. Instead, we question the wisdom of holding such a convention without already having sufficient reason to believe that such a convention will not result in additions to the Constitution that further undermine liberty. You have no way to give us such assurances in a society where the politicians who would run and control delegate access to such a convention are so heavily dominated by advocates of big, intrusive government. There's a huge difference between having a tool for change and not having the faintest clue how to use it effectively without making matters worse in the process. You, apparently, are one who lacks such a clue.
You blast the tenth amendment guys for being a bunch of trouble-causing revolutionaries,but a article 4 convention really isn't going to stop them or the revolution.Money as debt probably isn't going to change with it either.The collapse of the dollar will force communities and states to find their own way to survive.In 1789 the people of France overthrow centuries of repression,and soon the people of the various states will overthrow a century of progressive destruction.Two World wars,Great depression,inflation of the seventies,Vietnam,and much much more;sometimes people can't take it anymore.Hey,I'm young but I will not invest in a sinking ship.You sir, defend the oppressors.
Sorry Walt, not this time. You give me assurances that what I have charged about the Tenth Amendment is not true. This article may mention the Article V Convention as the only true alternative that will solve the problem but it really is about the fact I can show how dangerous these two movements are. Indeed had I wished I could have written the same article without even mentioning Article V and you know it. So let's not try to move around the focus of the article shall we? The focus is how dangerous the two mentioned movements are.
It is a historic fact that the last time a state believed in nullification of federal laws it led to a Civil War costing this nation 600,000 lives and left scars that to this day have not healed. Based on that fact alone I have a right as a citizen to question a movement that wants to attempt to do this again.
No. I'm not on the defensive on this. You provide proof this time. Everytime you review one of my articles you demand reference, as you should, to prove my points. I have done so each time. Now I demand the same of you and your supporters for your movement that you have been screaming about for an Article V Convention. In short, blasting comments like this one above won't cut it. Provide the reference Walt. I notice you didn't provide a single reference in your remarks. Come back with a second reply and prove the following.
You mention agenda. PROVE to me with evidence the Tenth Amendment movement won't lead to Civil War since it already has done so at least once. Prove to me with evidence it is a valid, legal, constitutional position by citing one case, state or federal, where this position is supported by a court of law. And none of this going back to 1832 stuff. I mean a modern case where a court has specifically interpreted the Tenth Amendment as the Tenth Amendment movement interprets it. In short give me one piece of viable evidence to support your claim, not quotes from Supreme Court decisions that if read in full clearly show the quote is taken out of context, but a decision by a court showing nullification is valid because that was the issue before the court. Give me real proof.
And speaking of agenda, I mention very specifically the agenda of the movement is very limited. I also mention if the states go along with it, civil liberities of individuals will be removed from state to state. You show me with evidence where I am wrong.
And then answer my query I have put forth with evidence. I notice you ignore that completely. Show me how a movement can say states have the right to nullify federal laws and then go to the federal court system to check and see if this is okay meaning they accept the decision of the court meaning they know the federal system is superior to the states meaning they know they don't have the right to nullify federal laws but must call upon the federal system to do it. Prove my query invalid by answering it with references and or other proof.
In short, either put up the evidence as FOAVC has or leave the field.
If you don't respond Walt, it will be obvious to all there is no evidence and hence my statements must be true.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2010-01-16 11:16:36
walt, you say you question the wisdom of convoking the Article V Convention. you're actually questioning the wisdom of the U.S. Constitution, which is based on common sense--power corrupts.
you're reasoning is fear-based, and irrational, not to mention illogical. take a moment, and walk through step by step, what would take place once the call is coerced out of the congress: the states would hold elections for delegates. these elections would not be your typical repub/dem elections. these elections would open up a pandora's box of political discourse we currently do not have.
whatever the convention proposes, it means nothing unless thirty-eight state legislatures agree to it. that would take some doing.
in the meantime, at least everyone would know the status quo is over. this would empower people who feel powerless, and that's exactly what the elites fear. why? because their game will have come to an end.
You are say you are young. Let me give you three suggestions when you attack someone. One, be accurate. It's an Article 5 convention not Article 4. If you are not accurate it makes you look ignorant, careless or unobservant and even if no one says a thing they notice such details and will not take your arguments seriously because they lack factual truth.
Second, learn how to type. There are spaces between sentences in a properly written letter, response or document. While anyone can make a slip typing, repeated errors such as yours detract from the visual presentation of your material because it hard to understand. Thus the flow of your words are not listened to in the mind as instead it struggles to get over the mistakes that any second grader would not make.
Third, learn English grammar. This means using complete sentences unless you intend for a specific purpose to use a fragment as emphasis, capitalizing correctly, using commas correctly and so on. Using proper grammar lends credit to your comment by making the reader assume you are educated and well versed. Not using the same causes the opposite opinion.
Now that I've fulfilled my quota of helping the nation's youth for the day, I'll respond to your comment.
I assume by it that in your youthful mind you say the Constitution is the oppressor. I find that comment so ridiculous as to be totally without merit. I will admit, as I did in my article, we have problems. But it is the Constitution that will solve them and to reject that leaves this nation utterly without any means to do so.
And judging by your comments of a revolution, it is clear my comments are correct. How about it, Walt? Ready for a Tenth Amendment REVOLUTION? Just like I wrote above and for the record I'm writing these AFTER I received notice about both comments and here we have proof that those in this movement intend to start and forment a REVOLUTION (READ THAT TO MEAN CIVIL WAR) UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT MOVEMENT right in a comment just below Walt's with his concern that the agenda of a convention MIGHT go bad.
Walt wants to be tucked in at night by the Constitution. He wants a guarantee beforehand of how things will go with a convention. Otherwise he'll take his ball and go home. It don't work that way Walt. A convention is mandated. Soon, very soon, public pressure will build on Congress and cause it to be called. How do you guarantee an agenda at the convention? By getting out and electing a sufficient number of delegates that favor your positions just like in any political campaign. You want it easy Walt and it's never easy in American politics.
And what is the alternative? Well judging by the comment just below his, if the Tenth Amendment movement comes to be the norm---REVOLUTION. I love it when someone comes along to prove my point by just showing up.
Forgive me,Bill, for my typing,personal attacks,and anything else you may not enjoy.However,I wish to look at the big picture.There is a lot of revulsion in America,and I think that talk of various ways to change law and government will eventually be meaningless in the long term.Nothing we do will change the Fall of the United States.That is my opinion so let the poor buggers who want to get out from under it do so.It is Liberty or Death after all isn't it.For crying out loud study economics,history,and monetary policy.If a I can see things a older person can't,I'm either stupid or insane.
First of all I do not forgive personal attacks. Second, as I have learned whenever someone resorts to personal attacks to respond they've told everybody the person making the statement must be right because obviously the attacker cannot logically respond to the comment with evidence etc. to prove the person making the statement wrong. In short, when you shoot the messenger instead of attacking his message, everybody knows you've conceded his message as accurate and true.
I won't comment therefore on your mental ability or state of sanity even though you have offered me the opportunity to decide which problem afflicts you. I will simply assume that as you have presented these as the only two alternatives one of them at least must be accurate and true.
You say the United States will fall. Possibly. Many nations have in the past. There is nothing to say it won't happen again though I do not think it likely of the United States while the present generation is around. But you do admit this is your opinion meaning you have no hard evidence to support such an opinion. And please if you intend to quote from the past at least make it make sense. It's "Give me liberty or give me death."
As to changes in government such as are being proposed that is by amendment, I suggest YOU look at history, economics and monetary policy. If you do you'll find that amendments have and will continue to play a key role in dealing with these issues in the past and will again in the future. Moreover, some of the solutions of the past have become problems of today and to repair that damage mandates an amendment which can only come about by convention as the present government is incapable of proposing the needed repairs.
Finally, I'm sorry you don't have faith either in yourself or your generation. For ultimately sir, it will be your responsiblity and that of your generation to take charge of this nation and your most solemn duty to pass this nation onto the next generation which you will be responsible not only to create but to educate. Our generations will have passed and you will be left in charge. If you represent that generation, and I don't believe you do, then truly this nation will fail but it will not be because of lack of quality of the nation nor its form of government which time has proven well tested to the task, but failure of persons like you in your generation to actually value this nation and be willing to do whatever it takes to ensure it does not fail. Because ultimately sir, you are this nation and failure in the United States is neither an option nor in most circumstances, even a consideration.
Perhaps you should dwell not on waiting around to see the nation fail but concentrate on seeing it doesn't for I doubt seriously you would servive the former and I expect you will have do a great deal of effort, time and expense to in any real way contribute to the latter.
And finally, you still have not with any evidence or proof refuted one statement I made in my article. Guess what I said must be true and accurate about both movements. Otherwise you'd have long since presented proof to the contrary. This makes two times I've written articles demanding the Tenth Amendment prove with evidence its assertions and two times no one has been able to show a thing.
You are right,Bill,the tenth amendment group can lead us to destruction.The Fifth amendment is the safest way to national unity.But really why can't the people in Washington see that they're asking a lot of us.May God have mercy and grant us a return to what we once were.May a just law judge this nation.
You can no more expect those in Washington D.C. today to see the problem than you can expect an alcoholic to admit he has a drinking problem. The Founders realized this principle and thus created alternatives to the amendment process such that if the national government was unable, unwilling or otherwise incapable of making necessary changes needed by the nation, the states could do the job.
But those in Washington D.C. have, in criminal violation of their oath of office violated the terms of the Constitution and this must be made known first of all to every American in the country. In turn, then, those Americans must ask those in Congress what gives them the right to veto the national law, to obey its mandates.
In this the Article V movement and the Tenth Amendment movement share common ground. However we split in that that movement seeks an unconstitutional means to achieve a solution while we demand a constitutional means already provided by used to solve the problem. The government knows it has to call. It's just a matter of cornering them in public to do so.
Thank you for seeing finally the answer. I suggest you consider joining FOAVC and help spread the word by urging and telling others about a convention.
When that bucket is (1) full of holes so it won't hold water or (2) filled with gasoline which will only make the fire worse, debate over its use is not only prudent but mandatory.
Perhaps, based on your website reference, you need to again read the part about the violation of federal criminal law again before proceding further. I didn't mention criminal conspiracy laws but trust me, they are there. Overthrowing civil authority and raising a private army under the direction of Bob Schulz is not going to fly and anyone sane enough to even put two sentences together coherently should realize that. If they don't they need some very serious help.
The CC2009 was, as I stated, along with many of its "delegates" who saw first hand through its sham, just a big avoid income tax illegally scam by a convicted income tax scammer. Nothing more. The facts prove it and most importantly, the statements prove it from the "congress."
Sooo. what exactly is your solution? I'm not following how an article V convention will stop criminals from behaving illegally...or are they not behaving illegally?
Most of the people I've talked to about this kind of thing think their government is acting illegally. Do you believe that the IRS has ever acted illegally? Do you (or the average citizen) think that judges that dont allow you to present evidence or deny a trial by jury are within the law? And if they are behaving illegally, what should an intellegent, informed people do about it? I am not attacking anybody, I am trying to find a course of action that has the best chance of working. Unfortunatly, I dont think there is one that doesn't involve a fight, and to write off anyone with a good idea because he has had tax issues, seems...bizarre.
Seems like you are arguing Rex Lex, but I thought Libertarians believed in Lex Rex. Is the King, Law or is the Law, King? Is not your argument that it has been decided upon, therefore it is right?
You believe Bob Shultz is trying to raise a private army? To do his personal bidding?... Like Stewie from Family Guy?
You dont forgive personal attacks? You do not hesitate to make them...good thing you dont need to be forgiven, then, I guess.
My thoughts (and I assume you are asking for my thoughts here) are that ANYBODY trying to come up with "the next, logical, non violent step for an oppressed people" seems to walking in the right direction. Even Stewie.
There is nothing logical or even non violent about suggesting succession by the states, nullification of federal laws by them or other such ridiculous actions. History itself should be enough of a teacher to show these ideas are bad for this nation and should be rejected because they have led to war in the past and have every chance of doing so again if they are followed.
As to your questions regarding the "congress." Is he trying to raise an army? His site says so. He is known to have controlled the "congress" that proposed them. I would say the evidence speaks for itself.
The only solution that will work is an Article V Convention. As to what might work. Just to suggest one that has already been applied for. What's wrong with an initiative, referendum, recall amendment? The effects of such an amendment should be obvious and I'm sure that other proposals made by the states such as, for example, courts of the union to review Supreme Court rulings, removal of federal income tax to reduce the money the federal government gets and so on should be clearly obvious as to the effect they would have. I'm sure when the convention is called, other proposals from citizens will emerge to answer your question. Point is, amendments work. The rest of these proposals do not.
The only "army" this effort is attempting to build is one of self-determination with a purpose and pathway for remedying what we've allowed to break. Imagine 5% of America showing up in 50 state capitols simultaneously on April 19th, 2010 to make a showing of unified, peaceful force... and delivering a set of Instructions for our servant government. Not a set of platitudes and slogans and seeking remedy via elections and sign making. This is beyond elections, petitioning and tea partying.
In solidarity will a free people prevail. Maybe that is what has Mr. Walker so spooked and motivating him to personal attacks and non-constructive unsubstantiated attacks on two grassroots efforts to revitalize popular sovereignty. How dare the people actually take responsibility into their own hands! How dare the people withdraw their resources, peacefully, lawfully, righteously from a tyrant leviathan who has had every opportunity for the last fifteen years to redress the People's grievances.
Walker's thesis is borne out here:
"Finally, despite the arrogance of this "congress" to the contrary, this group has no right to "instruct" federal or state officials how they shall conduct their lawful official business. That job is assigned to the courts by federal and state constitutions."
Hmmmm... that's really the crux of the argument isn't it? Do We the People have the right to command our servant government to follow the oath of office they took and uphold the rule book we all agreed upon? It is OUR DUTY to take such actions, frankly.
The CC2009 and Articles of Freedom are not attempting to direct the servant government to do anything that they already should not be doing anyway.
So what is the problem again? Have you even read any of the work product? Any of the instructions?
As we all know, despite Mr. Walker may think, any right that is not enforceable is no right at all.
I encourage all readers of these unsubstantiated attacks on the Continental Congress 2009 to explore the thoughtful lawful process that led to the CC2009, the event itself and the work product the Articles of Freedom.
The hard work and civic duty that the delegates performed for America will speak for itself...but you do have to take the time to explore what is there.
And finally Mr. Walker, even if readers of this blog wish to take your slanderous statements at face value, and follow your vision... what exactly are the next steps for a free people in order to achieve your plan? You've thrown lots of stones. But I see no actual pathway to pursue what you propose.
At least the 10th Amendment Center and the Articles of Freedom have outlined such specifics and have an actionable plan. With respect, this is no time for armchair quarterbacking. http://www.articlesoffreedom.us/ThePlan.aspx
Mr. Walker, I disagree with you on more than a few of your "opinions" in the article above. First off, that a state chooses to engage the "public servants" in federal government regarding their 10th Amendment/nullification efforts should be viewed as an attempt to engage those "human beings" who are the custodians or agents of the federal government, whose laws and Constitution are being violated.
To claim that they are somehow cow-towing to the feds because they are engaged with them doesn't hold water.
Additionally, you've made several false statements, and false claims against the Continental Congress, and Mr. Schulz. While I do not personally agree with all of Mr. Schulz's actions, motivations, or agendas, I cannot in good conscience agree with your un-founded and unsubstantiated conclusion that the Continental Congress is dangerous.
As the 1st Delegate from the Great State of North Carolina, and Vice-Chairman of the Administrative Committee for the Continental Congress, I am certain I know a lot more than you "pretend" to know about the objectives and agenda of the Congress.
If there is a threat to be assessed here, it is your attack of the duly-elected citizen-delegates of the Continental Congress, which from my personal experience as a delegate, seem to be outrageously distorted and without factual evidence.
The restoration of Constitutional governance will NOT be secured by the Article V Convention you hold so dear. If merely adding amendments to the Constitution would make them magically be "upheld and defended," then our 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment Rights would already be quite secure.
I will agree there are problems with the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments that need to be addressed. They may even need to be repealed, assuming they were ever legally ratified in the first place, but the place to begin the process is NOT an Article V Convention, but rather, a thorough education of the American People of their God-given unalienable rights, and the Divinely-inspired "New Constitution" that came from the Second Continental Congress, and the "Bill of Rights" adopted during the time of the 1st Congress.
I personally do not trust most state legislators any further than I can spit, let alone throw them. That you would blindly trust them to elect or send delegates to an Article V Convention who would in good faith, and with a wholesome discretion, give due diligence to preserving the freedoms and liberties already guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights suggests either a naivete on your part, or a failure to think it through.
Your attacks on the Continental Congress are NOT based on facts, but rather, innuendo and presumptions, if not outright slander and lies. There are certainly those delegates to the Continental Congress (2009-2011 Session) that aren't drinking Mr. Schulz's koolaid, and I can assure you, won't be drinking yours either regarding an Article V Convention. Perhaps we should start holding our elected and appointed officials "accountable" for their insurrections, treasons, and misprisions of treason, instead of trying to re-write the Supreme Law of the Land.
James Madison, author of the Constitution, said the following:
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow."
Additionally, Thomas Jefferson stated, "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion with education."
I certainly trust the Founders, specifically the authors of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution more than I do ANY handful of state legislators.
I would suggest you target the traitors in office, and NOT the non-partisan citizen patriots of the Continental Congress.
I suggest your read your own proposals. I remind you that Mr. Thiessen was the first one to comment on this article AFTER he reviewed it prior to publication. I can assure you that if he found it to be false he wouldn't have allowed it to be published. In short, the charges I made are based on statements contained with the "articles of freedom."
So, now that it is clear you are trying to avoid what you proposed, there isn't really much more to say. The facts are plain. Your organization proposed to remove lawfully elected officials if they don't agree with your interpretation. That is an illegal act. You advocate raising an army. I don't care what term you use but that army is not to under the control of the present state or federal governments. As to your intentions, I really don't care. It is what you passed in your "congress" that matters.
And yes you are trying to have state and federal governments do things that they are not required to do. The laws you speak of were legally passed and there are legal methods within the Constitution to review them, eliminate or change them. Your group seems bent on ignoring all that.
And let's get down to it. What "people" do you supposedly represent? In most of the states, these "delegates" were elected by two or three hundred people at the most. Do you seriously believe that "vote" actually represents the people as a whole? As to being duly elected please provide your election certificate issued by your state showing you the winner of the election held in your state. I'd be interested in seeing it. "Duly elected" specifically refers to that certificate.
As to the next step. Force Congress (the real Congress) to call an Article V Convention. Propose amendments to deal with the specific issues you raise and get them ratified. Problem solved.
Now let's review the situation. Mr. Schulz is a convicted income tax scammer. That is a matter of public record. The charges I made are backed up by quotes taken directly from the "Articles of Freedom." Of course I notice they keep changing. Funny how that is. A congress that voted to let someone change their work after it was voted on them. Interesting.
As to your comments amendments don't work. I'm sorry but they do work. Your "congress" operated under the protection of them. As to a convention, it would be elected delegates, not appointed ones as you state. And unlike you I can cite a Supreme Court ruling to back this statement up if need be.
As to getting support for your "congress" how's that working out for you? I notice you've done nothing of actual action since this "congress." Perhaps the fact you would be facing the criminal charges I list are giving you pause. If not, then I suggest both of you go down to your local sheriff and confront him as you suggest and see what he does. Be my guest. Let me know how that works out. Go down and tell him unless he does what you want you will remove him from office.
In summary if what I said was "slander and lies" Mr. Thiessen wouldn't have let it be published. Well, it was published.
And finally one last comment. If your "congress" was such a great idea how come practically no Internet chatter about it. Indeed, I have actually Googled this matter and found there are about two comments on the entire Internet by outsiders since the congress. Consider that carefully. No body is picking up on this. If they did the Internet would be full of your "congress" and its efforts. They can read too and anyone doing so fully understands what you really are advancing.
B)Convicted IRS victims must be ignored because they are bad, mkay?
C)No one is paying attention (have you looked at this page?) [this page is chatter, dumbass!]
D) the tried and true method of "straw man" arguments
FYI many do suport these actions, many more are joining every day, I personally have seen more "action " behind this than ANY OTHER movement I've seen in 20 years, but, I must confess, you have succeeded in capturing me in satans' greatest trap, wasting time with non-sequitors such as yourself, so I must bid you farewell.
I guess there will always be some that are convinced they can bring an end to tyranny by siding with the tyrant. Don't fight for what is right because you can't win. That seems cowardly to me, but most people are cowards, so I guess you ensure your success that way.
So, it seems to me, you have nothing to bring to the party...
I will place my efforts in what I believe in, and leave you to do the same.
Now I say this sincerely....good luck to you, buddy.
It is obvious you actually looked at the links I provided and found out the text I quoted exists from the "congress". I note you didn't deny the text exists.
As to your other comments. A. You state that amendments that don't exist yet aren't enforceable. Your "nobody enforces already" comment shows a lack of understanding on that point. You assume amendments aren't enforced but provide no evidence of the same. Prove your point with evidence, not opinion, as I noted above. Just because you believe something is illegal or unconstitutional doesn't make it so. Provide evidence. Of course, as always when I have demanded evidence of proof from either group, it's amazing how rapidly they melt away.
B. I do not believe that convicted IRS victims exist. If people refuse to pay thier income taxes or urge others to do so, it violates the law. They are not victims. They are criminals. And by the way, it's the same in every other nation that collects tax which is all of them. Now if you want the laws changed in this nation, go about it the way the law prescribes; don't waste your or my time saying criminal acts will solve the issue. They don't. All they do is land people in jail.
C. Where have you been lately? Amendment proposals have been springing up all over the place.
D. Tried and true argument of straw man. Let's see. I prove my case such that no one denies the text I referred to exists and you call that straw man. How about instead just admit I'm right. No one of any of these comments has denied that language urging the overthrow of legal authority exists in those "articles of freedom" or that when it was passed it existed. No one denies the raising of a private army was not urged.
E. This is my own. You might reconsider your position about your decision. I didn't just happen to mention the federal criminal laws in this article for just any reason. I wanted anyone who read it that supported these movements to stop and think, to be absolutely sure they knew what could happen to them should they move ahead in this. That way, when it happens, my conscience is clear.
Now you sir say you're going to go your way. You are going to risk criminal prosecution for a man whose criminal record is well known but ignored by his followers. If there is anyone in "satan's greatest trap" it is you. I wish all the luck. You're going to need it.
Currently, Mr. Walker, the only "official" version of the Articles of Freedom is the version approved on Jan. 31, 2010 by the Continental Congress.
What Mr. Schulz has posted are un-official drafts, edited mostly by We the People Foundation volunteers and Delegate Schulz. While they are similar, there is ONLY ONE OFFICIAL VERSION.
First of all, what is Bob Schulz doing changing anything? After all, supposedly he was just one delegate. What gives me the authority to do anything? And why on these other websites is it not explained there is an "official" version to the website you describe?
Now to the details. On your "official" site, p. 19 of the pdf file, page 13 of the "official" "articles of freedom."
"establishing a constitutional milita...separate from the state national guard." In short a private army. Call it what you will but it is right there.
And the purpose of this "milita"?
See page 31 of the pdf file, page 25 of the "articles of freedom."
"to replace any sheriff or county or state government officials..." true you do state by election, impeachment or recall. But then the slammer comes.
"Be prepared to withhold their income tax from the government once the above steps of self-defense are in place."
That's urging a criminal action and thus the above laws mentioned by me apply. Further, a "militia" as you call it is also illegal and the only thing you're going to get from a sheriff is arrest if your "milita" shows up at his door. And it quite clear with these passages that your "official" version is trying to create a private army to prevent lawful collection of income tax. That is insurrection.
Oh and by the way would you care to explain to me why it is your organization opposes (including Schulz by the way) repeal of the 16th Amendment since 39 states have applied for it in an Article V Convention? Also, if you bother to read the applications you'll see that several of the issues you raise would be brought up at a convention. Care to explain why you opppose using the Constitution to solve a constitutional issue. And don't give me that crap about the government will rule it and so on. If the government wanted amendments, they'd use their own procedure.
Now, you make a big deal about obeying the Constitution in your piece, your "official" piece which Bob Schulz has been editing, sending out different versions and so on. (That's like the printer editing the Declaration of Independence after it was signed or the mail clerk who sent it to the King of England adding his two bits before putting it on the boat.) Obviously, the creditability of this "official" document is totally suspect as Bob Schulz by your own admission has altered it or may have done so since the "congress" was held and you admit it. So what you say may be or may not be true. Who knows. With different versions floating around who can tell. But one thing is certain, Bob Schulz is behind all this, a known convicted federal felon. (Income tax scamming is a felony if you haven't heard) and settles that.
Now one point, just a minor one. Your "congress" makes a big deal about obeying the Constitution and the government should obey it and so on. You go on for pages. News Flash. An Article V Convention is in the Constitution. Article V mandates a convention call by Congress if the states apply which they have. As admitted by the government (and remember your "official" version says the government should obey its oath of office) not to call a convention is a violation of oath of office. Therefore the government is mandated to call a convention.
If you people truly believe the Constitution should be obeyed, then I demand you and every other member of your entire organization should come out in full support of an Article V Convention because you demand the Constitution be obeyed and that is part of the Constitution. Now put your money where you mouth is. Either you support the Constitution, ALL THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN OR YOUR DON'T. So far, you've shown your constitutional hypocricy at opposing obeying the Constitution when it suits you. Let's see what you are really made of. Supporting obeying the Constitution when YOU DON'T agree with a provision or requirement.
No excuses, no nothing. Just support it or prove to me and everyone else you are no different than those you accuse of being "traitors" I believe the word you used in your "official" version. Let's see what you really are.
Anyone want to take a bet I (a) never get a response to my challenge (b) the "official" version is changed (c) this group comes out opposing obeying the Constitution?
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.
