-42 votes

The time for a Constituional Convention is now.

A Constitutional Convention is what you guys are looking for. I heard the idea for the first time months back on Coast to Coast AM, and then yesterday I heard the same basic conversation going on on Alex jones' show.

Due to the fact that the whitehouse.gov petitions get media attention I started my own, asking for Obama to endorse the state legislators to start the process needed to call for a Constitutional Convention. Please sign this petition, please forward it, please get the word out, the time to do this is now. We need to ride this wave of succession and turn it into something useful and beneficial to the union. I am a Texas man, and I am all for Texas becoming its own country, but if there is a way to save the union, that is the route I would like to see taken. That is why I have started this petition.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/endorse-states-con...

For Liberty,
Clyde Barber




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

thoughts..

Constitutional Convention & Conference of States-
The Effort to Dismantle Our Constitution:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/effort2dismantle.htm

JBS: Beware of Con-Cons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMg_yGlcUX4

Study [from the Ford Foundation] Offers New U.S. Constitution:
http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%20Notes/New%20Cons...

secession or nullification are the only answers.. but a con-con cannot be adequately managed to protect individual liberty. the delegates would undoubtedly be compromised by those who already pull the strings in this country. so if you trust a rockefeller or rothschild to write you a new constitution.. go for it.

also: why does anyone give a damn about the 'union'? isn't it this "blessed union" that has promulgated the lions share of wholesale international theft, slavery and murder of human beings since it's inception?

wouldn't states have substantial self-interest in coming to the protection of another if defense from foreign invaders is an issue?

there would be no need to regulate (or to make regular) interstate commerce because the free market is perfectly capable of doing so.

if there were no federal government, would a man in arkansas stop being your brother because you live in vermont? or more importantly, why is he any more your brother than a man in Uzbekistan?

i'm curious why people are so adamant in maintaining what appears to be such an insidious institution.

To Clyde, and all.

"A Constitutional Convention is what you guys are looking for."

FALSE.

Do NOT include me in this.

I stand by, and have every intention of defending and protecting The Constitution.

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Funny How Those Opposing The Constitution Say They Love It

I've read the gist of these comments and one message comes through: Nearly all of them say they support the Constitution then urge its veto. The author fails to mention the states have already applied in sufficient numbers to cause a convention call. You can read the 748 applications from 49 states at www.foavc.org. So, when all on this site who commented suggest no convention, what they are really saying is they support veto of the Constitution. So how do they explain this obviously contradictory position? They can't.

Now as to those who say Social Security is unconstitutional and so forth, I put a challenge to them. PROVE IT. For example, Social Security is a tax. Congress has the right to determine how taxes are collected and spent. No question about it. SS is constitutional. I could take every example I've read and do the same. Universal health care which I oppose by the way, constitutional. Congress has the power to regulate commerce not to mention the power of tax and as the courts recently pointed out that makes it constitutional. Bad policy but constitutional.

So the challenge is this. OTHER than refusing to obey Article V and call the convention as mandated, show any other action of the government which is either not authorized by the Constitution or in which the text of the Constitutions says the government shall do "X" and it has done "Y". Not your opinion, but a factual statement in writing by use of the public record. Now I'm not discussing court decisions where the courts have so ruled, I'm talking about issues where you believe such a violation has occurred and there is no constitutional support for that action. I'll give you a hint. You'll have to go back to Lincoln to find examples.

It's funny how many so-called conservatives hold they "love" the Constitution and support it and then when it comes to obeying provisions they do not agree with suddenly see no problem in urging that provision not be obeyed. The conservatives held this position in the last election and publicly displayed opposition to obeying the Constitution on the GOP website, specifically regarding a convention call. Now consider: you're an undecided voter who has to choose between a president who many say have violated the Constitution but who cannot provide written proof of this, only opinion and supposition, versus a candidate who declares He WILL veto the Constitution if elected. Who do you choose?

Maybe, just maybe you should consider your position regarding a convention. Unless you want to keep losing elections until there is no republican party or perhaps not even a conservative movement, let alone a Ron Paul position.

Oh, by the way, Mr. Paul has expressed privately in the past support for an Article V Convention provided operational questions regarding it, not constitutional, can be resolved. Upon learning of these answers, he supported it because he believes in obeying and supporting the entire Constitution, not just parts of it. Too bad his so-called followers don't believe as he does.

If you think I'm making this up, why don't ask him?

Bill Walker
www.foavc.org

Begging the answer?

"So, when all on this site who commented suggest no convention, what they are really saying is they support veto of the Constitution. So how do they explain this obviously contradictory position? They can't."

How can someone answer the questions asked?

Who contradicts their own position on limited constitutional government, or self-government, or Common Law government, or voluntary government?

If your question is aimed at criminals or dupes, then the contractions that exist are willful (criminal) or ignorant (duped), but my question to you has to do with your own understanding of limited, competitive, voluntary, constitutional government, whereby there is no contradiction, and therefore my question concerns who you are aiming at when you intend to hold those who are contradictory accountable for their contradictions.

Who contradicts themselves as you claim, and will any of those people who contradict themselves ever publicly answer for those contradictions?

If the answer is no, they will not, then why do they either refuse to resolve those contradictions, or why can then never resolve those contradictions if they were to attempt such an obviously productive challenge.

In other words: Why spend another calorie of energy on "government" if it is no different than crime; without the false justifications?

"So, when all on this site who commented suggest no convention, what they are really saying is they support veto of the Constitution. So how do they explain this obviously contradictory position? They can't."

One thing many people misunderstand about the 1788 Constitution is the actual intent of it, that intent of consolidating the Separate Sovereign Limited Constitutional State Governments into ONE MONOPOLY POWER complete with Money Monopoly Power, so failing to understand that may be the source of many contradictions.

"Congress has the power to regulate commerce not to mention the power of tax and as the courts recently pointed out that makes it constitutional. Bad policy but constitutional."

The battle that has been raging since 1776 was a battle over dictatorial power (as in consolidated government) and self-governing, competitive, voluntary, democratic federated republican, common law, government, and the bad guys won big in 1788, so as you appear to be saying with your quote above, is that the bad guys, the collectivist, the Monarchs, the One World Government, the Monopoly Legal Money, the Dictators, those who will enslave, and without mincing words, the criminals, are legitimately committing crimes, because they get to say what IS means, and they get to constructively interpret any word written on any paper at any time, and when they want to define the meaning of words the opposite way the next minute, that is legitimate too, because they say so, and those under such "laws" have to obey without question.

If that is what you are saying, then say it.

If that isn't what you are saying then confirm otherwise.

There are two sides, this is not new, one side claims absolute dictatorial authority, because they say so, and the other side figures out how to separate fact from fiction in a reliable, scientific, method, such as a democratic federated republic with trial by jury based upon sortition, and limited constitutional self government, with examples to help improve the workability of the methodology.

Which side are you on?

"So the challenge is this. OTHER than refusing to obey Article V and call the convention as mandated, show any other action of the government which is either not authorized by the Constitution or in which the text of the Constitutions says the government shall do "X" and it has done "Y". Not your opinion, but a factual statement in writing by use of the public record."

There is no "government" that does anything, or thinks anything, so if you want to know who is accountable for anything, there has to be an accused person. So why does anyone hold things to account for the actions of people?

"I'll give you a hint. You'll have to go back to Lincoln to find examples."

Here is factual records of current events worthy of note at the time, and relevant to today, as to the topic subject matter, and your challenge in particular:

http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html

In particular:

"I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government."

If anyone wishes to speak of dictatorial criminal government as if such a thing were legitimate, then do so, and please know that you are doing so, lending it support, or speaking against it.

"It's funny how many so-called conservatives hold they "love" the Constitution and support it and then when it comes to obeying provisions they do not agree with suddenly see no problem in urging that provision not be obeyed."

And those who are doing this "loving" can raise their hands. For me there is a moral agreement at work among moral human beings, and it does not have to be in writing, but when things are in writing, or recorded in some way, the fellow Friends of Liberty have a harder time forgetting those moral agreements, so what is wrong with having a limited constitutional government at all?

"Now consider: you're an undecided voter who has to choose between a president who many say have violated the Constitution but who cannot provide written proof of this, only opinion and supposition, versus a candidate who declares He WILL veto the Constitution if elected. Who do you choose?"

The people, or the productive people whose POWER finances self-government WILL stop providing those provisions to said government when said government (a list of names of actual people), when those people turn to deception, threats, and violence, or criminal acts, while in office. That is the limit on government. Those people who use "government" to make their crimes legal for them, alone, and against the law if anyone else commits the same crimes, LIMIT their victims in that way.

So which is it?

1.
Productive people limiting the power of government to be only moral government.

2.
Criminals who take over government and then enslave their victims with it.

Where is the contradiction when things are spelled out rationally in English?

"Maybe, just maybe you should consider your position regarding a convention. Unless you want to keep losing elections until there is no republican party or perhaps not even a conservative movement, let alone a Ron Paul position."

Maybe you should read at least one book on what actually happened at the first "convention"?

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutio...

The criminals tend to fix their problems by making their crimes only legal for them, not legal for their victims.

If you don't understand that then who is contradictory?

1. You

2. They

"Oh, by the way, Mr. Paul has expressed privately in the past support for an Article V Convention provided operational questions regarding it, not constitutional, can be resolved. Upon learning of these answers, he supported it because he believes in obeying and supporting the entire Constitution, not just parts of it. Too bad his so-called followers don't believe as he does."

A major problem with the constitution is the plausible dependability, or wiggle room, or it constructively interpretable language, as pointed out by many of the original opponents, but that does not make IT bad, that fluid nature of the supposed "law" power can turn out to be bad, when a Clinton or Bush is in POWER, while a self-government, free market, competitive, voluntary, moral person, like Ron Paul, may find IT to be good, as good as Gold, or as good as the Golden Rule.

Who is in POWER?

The answer aught to be accurate, not ambiguous.

"If you think I'm making this up, why don't ask him?"

I think that you aught to answer the challenge returned back to you.

Who is contradictory, exactly?

Joe

The problem is

We are not currently upholding the constitution as it stands. Even assuming we could pass a new constitution without a bunch of socialist garbage in it, what makes us think it will be upheld anymore than our current one?

Beware Article V

Just follow the Constitution DON'T change it! No Con-Con!!!!

A constitutional convention is the worst thing you could do!

They'll end up changing the constitution by making it much worse. Granted the constitution isn't perfect, but we haven't even given it a chance. Just push to get your reps to FOLLOW the constitution. Give it a chance and I promise you, we'll be in much better shape than we are now.

I forbid a Constitutional-Convention! Just FOLLOW the Constitution!

I'm with you!

Can you imagine what today's politicians would come up with?
A 4,597 pgs of impenetrable gobbledygook written by lobbyists with a thousand loopholes and gotchas.

Suicide

Perfect way to codify the welfare warfare state. Who do you think our states will select as represent us at a con-con? Not you and I for sure....

$1 for pocket book Constitution

if bought in bulk...give to everyone for X-Mas...the gift of freedom!
http://www.cato.org/store/books/declaration-independence-con...

spread it like wildfire. This is how we WIN

Dr. Paul has tried to tell us to know the Constitution like the back of our hands to defend ourselves against atrocities like these. Carl Miller explains why below:
http://www.trentonian.com/article/20121020/OPINION03/1210299...

This guy, CM, is BRILLIANT. Watch part 2 first to see what's possible. Part 1 are important case laws. This stuff needs to be spread around like wild fire. This is how we free ourselves fr. slavery

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q35DoJroTYY&feature=relmfu Know Your Constitution - Carl Miller Part 2 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s-zHrNPfkQ&feature=relmfu Know Your Constitution - Carl Miller Part 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9fdSirNinQ&feature=relmfu Know Your Constitution - Carl Miller Part 3 of 3

Talk of a con-con is

Talk of a con-con is ridiculous. Do you even understand how and why we do not follow the constitution we already have? Do you understand how you have waived your constitutional protections by voluntarily contracting with the federal government? So you have volunteered yourself into slavery and now you want to change the rules that the slavemasters follow? Do you see how ridiculous that is? I'm not attacking you but the slavemasters' wildest dream would be a con-con. There is nothing wrong that can't be fixed by amending the existing constitution (assuming we could get the federal government to follow it).

Ask yourself this: is Social Security possible under our current Constitution? Is the Federal Reserve possible under same? How about the IRS? Federal drug laws? Wars of aggression? Mandatory health insurance?

Read Invisible Contracts by George Mercier and you will begin to understand the much bigger picture. Its a very long book because these are complex issues that have evolved over centuries and things are not what they seem. People who endorse a con-con are following the illusion that things ARE what they seem.

You were doing fine until you mentioned Mercier.

I don't buy his theory that you can be a party to a contract that you didn't know you were a party to.

Part of the requirement of a valid contract is disclosure. There is no such thing as a "secret contract."

You either know you are making one, or you don't. If you don't, then you didn't make a contract.

Mercier was attempting to find a conspiracy to explain why things are FUBAR, when there are much simpler explanations.

There is no need to attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by ignorance, ineptitude or corruption.

Mercier is also in the vein that if one thing isn't what you thought it was, therefore NOTHING is what you thought it was. It's the syndrome of because you figured out you were lied to about one thing, therefore you think everything is a lie, and that because you found out the "truth" on the internet or in some obscure book, everything you find on the net or in a low print book that talks about "reality" is therefore true.

Point taken. I wasn't trying

Point taken. I wasn't trying to hold Mercier up as the ultimate truth but I believe a lot of what he says regarding irrecusable obligations is valid. I am still searching for answers myself and Mercier has some good info. I have also been following your posts on here for several years and I appreciate your input and info.

Constitutional convention could be good!

But on one issue only and would have to start from the ground up. The one issue that affects every person in The USA and in world in a negative way is the FEDERAL RESERVE.

We should all start a list of grievances on the FED. The top ten could be center point of the Convention.

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

Ron Paul has told us

Ron Paul has told us repeatedly that a con-con is not necessary to abolish the Fed. Simply allowing competing currencies would do the trick. The dangers of a con-con outweigh the potential positive outcomes. I agree with Ron Paul that if we could simply follow the Constitution we already have, most if not all of the problems would take care of themselves. The problem is in learning how and why we are not following the Constitution.

I said from the ground up to educate the sheep

Most believe the FED is part of the Federal Government. I have a friend that believed that for 60 years until I set him straight. Competing currencies will work only when the sheeple understand who the FED really is.

Just try and tell someone that the FED is just a cartel of privately owned banks, that controls our economy and most politicians. A cartel that has control over the military industrial complex and all networks in this country. Most don't realize the FED was the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on the people.

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

one issue. sure.

just like the last one.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Those against a ConCon make no sense

you don't trust what could happen with one because the people who would be sent. Understandable. But the people you fear can, right now, do the very same thing you fear. They can pass amendments, they can call a con-con on their own, they can rewrite whatever they want with or without constitutionaly authority.

So why the fear of a con-con? It may be the only way for people outside Washington DC and the federal gangsters to peacefully fix the federal government.

You con-con pussies just make no sense at all.

Dictators think alike

"You con-con pussies just make no sense at all."

A Dictator in the wings, or one in office, it does not matter, they all play the same tune.

They say that I know, and you cannot question.

They hear no one, and they dictate to those people who they don't listen to, as to what is said by those people that they do not listen to, as if their failure to listen to someone is somehow the fault of the person they refuse to listen to.

The dictator is the only one capable of making any sense, and everything said by everyone else makes no sense - at all.

Absolute statements of absolute certainty is the tune, and there is no other tune ever heard, forever, by executive fiat.

Con Job.

In fact, if a Con Con, being such a good idea, and all else, everything else, is nonsense, then move it along Mr. Dictator, since a Con Con makes all the sense in the world.

How is it working for you so far, since so far, this here, and that there, a Federal Reserve here, a Civil War there, Alien and Sedition Acts here, an TSA there, are all part and parcel to the first Con Con Con Job, so, while we are all assembled for the absolute truth, failing to listen to any more nonsense, by all means, lets Con Con an new Con Job, and fearless leader can spell out exactly what that means without constructing a new meaning if IT every other day, to suit the occasion.

Joe

right now they can amend the Constitution

your idea is to let them replace it instead?
no thanks.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

They don't even follow it now

so what's the difference. they don't need a con-con to do anything they want. We on the other hand have few levers to peacefully fight back with, a con-con being one of them.

"they don't follow it now

so what's the difference?"

exactly. so leave the Constitution as it is. what are you going to change for the better? a "follow the Constitution" amendment?

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

you can't be serious

you can do a lot to further limit and better define the constitution so it is not as easy for the supreme court to make crap up.

If you don't think there is a chance of this then you are beyond a peaceful means to fix the problems. So then there is no chance in your mind. So why do you object to this possible means?

you can't be serious

in my lifetime there has been one Ron Paul.
you suddenly expect a roomful of them?
i am not beyond a peaceful means of change. maybe we should focus our efforts on governors and state legislators to keep the feds in check.
the Constitution provides a goal to strive for.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

NO!

You are misguided. Who would oversee the re-writing of the Constitution? The criminals in D.C. !!!! Bad Idea! NO! NO! NO!

Correct a ConCon with the

Correct a ConCon with the degenerates who got us to where we are at would be a fatal mistake.

------------------
Turn off the TV Propaganda.
Find out what's really going on!
www.Tru-News.com
"Your portal to reality!"

A Constitutional Convention is Fraught with Danger

Here the dangers of a "Con Con" that must be considered Be sure to see the link in the article as well:

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/01/chuck-bald...

-Bloatedtoad

Absolutly NOT

We ought to follow our own constitution first before we ratify anew.

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?
http://youtu.be/yNF09pUPypw

Nope!

Just because we currently aren't using the best tool(s) we have for self-government correctly DOES NOT mean we should jump too far ahead into this hazardous mode.

As others have said: this course would be fraught with unimaginable danger--outright sabotage, more like. The bitter irony would be that doubtless MORE power would go to those very interests from which we so desperately need to wrest it.

If we are going to go to the trouble to get up off it and do something, I think we will have quicker, safer results via nullification, etc.

It is an important point you raise, however, and thank you sincerely for that.

What would the Founders do?