-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.


For Liberty,
Clyde Barber

Comment viewing options

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

All those in favor...

say aye...(crowd peeps..aye!) All those opposed say no...(Crowd goes nutz...NO!) In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes's have it!

Screw you pal...we all know how our public political gatherings go now-a-days and who televises and reports on them. Until you show me your Bazooka and license to carry and use at your own discretion...and absolute proof of YOUR ability to discern (which is at question simply from your OP)...again...screw you.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

I don't think that is the point..

Like the secession petitions, this petition is supposed to draw attention to the issue and raise awareness. How many people are aware the Constitution Convention provision even exists in the Constitution?

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Sure, that's a good idea..

Let's make the average neocons and liberals aware that they could get their social issues past as easy as 123 when they have the majority of the power.

Brilliant move.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

If We Were a Real Free Society

...would our current Constitution be the best for that system or was it scaffolding until we "earned" and grew into a free society?


there is a problem

with our current constitution, that is why we are where we are now, they have been able to use certains words and change the meaning, ie general welfare, commerce clause, these are the things that need to be fixed. The federal government is not going to be fixed from the federal level, it is going to take the states, a constitutional convention is the most efficiant way to make those changes from the state level.

You just got PAULED!

Unfortunately, you guys are beating a dead horse

here. The individuals slamming you are never going to understand the true premise of a Constitutional Convention. Their paranoia of their locally elected officials is indicative of the myopic view of someone who spends far too much time criticizing others rather then constructively dealing with reality. Your statement about them being "able to use certain words" strikes to the heart of the matter. The bastardization of the word "coin" is what allowed them to create the Federal Reserve and unless I'm as delusional as those who I've been trying to make understand, therein lies the true root of the evil which has taken over this nation. Destroy the Fed through a Convention and most other issues will rapidly fall into place. My advice to all the nay sayers, get to know your local representatives, feel them out on the issues of Constitutional law and if you aren't satisfied, work to replace them. A few here would do well to get some semblance of a real life, take a break from the keyboard and stop attempting to limit discussion.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

Thank You Clyde and I Agree

I wish there was not so much resistance to looking at the words and phrases that either don't fit for these days and times, never did, or have become hijacked and twisted to such a degree that we need to back up and look at them again.

I have tremendous respect for the Founding Fathers and recognize that those words have offered hope for an ideal world to many. However, I see two problems we are faced with now. (1) We can't approximate "liberty" for all as long as there is an unsustainable system in place that interprets "equality" as entitlement programs. (2) Almost everything by the Federal Government "infringes" on what we "thought" to be our rights.

Are you proposing constitutional conventions in "each" state that so chooses and assuming others will follow or lose their business and citizens? A re-education will take place as the power shifts to the States and in the hands of the individuals?

It is my understanding that there is no group of people who have insinuated that the Constitution was handed down by God and was ever intended to be viewed as scripture and infallible except the Mormons (and I doubt all Mormons believe that, certainly not Mitt Romney).

Further it seems to me that if we remain on our present trajectory, not only will administration after administration, Supreme Court after Supreme Court, and local judges ignore it...it will become such a stretch from reality that it won't even make any sense. Ron Paul says "why don't we just follow the Constitution?" That got some people looking at it. I think it is possible that Ron Paul knew that there is very little likelihood that we will follow it given crony capitalism and that if we did with its current interpretation that would just sink us deeper into socialism.

I know little compared to many on this blog. I haven't studied Mises in depth. I am coming primarily from logic and would appreciate my logic being corrected as I want very much to understand.


Liberty is not scaffolding

Liberty is not scaffolding for anarchy. They are very different concepts. Anarchy encourages people to dominate others and infringe on their freedoms. Liberty enforces that people do not. Anarchy is isolationist. Liberty is not.

Anarchy is what we have and have had for most of our existence. It is the lack of any rule of law. Most governments do not follow their own law, making them nothing more than a cartel operating in an anarchistic society. The idea that although these cartels have emerged 100% of the time, without fail, throughout history, in every single situation, somehow they will not one day, is rather preposterous.

If You Meant Me

I would never say and did not that the idea of "liberty" is scaffolding. It is the goal. Liberty = Freedom. Freedom is an idea whose time has come. Slaves were absolutely right to want freedom from their "masters" in the same way we want freedom from our "elitist masters" and a free market with opportunity. Freed slaves did not expect to be fed and clothed. The ones who did tried to stay around the plantation.

However the wording of the Constitution needs to be changed or a gradual reinterpretation of its meaning. Right now it is interpreted to mean it is okay for me to steal your cow if I can get away with it because your right to bear arms has been repealed (or may soon be). Further if the cow that is now mine has a calf, you should give me food stamps to feed it. You should also give me pasture for it to graze.

That has to somehow change it seems to me. I think this thread is exploring not dictating anything. Cut out or stay and try to fix it by some paradigm shifts? I do not think the petitions will lead anywhere and even if they did, would that really result in escape from the conditions tht prevail. We have a movement toward States standing up against the patriot act, NDAA, gun rights...many things. I think that is a move in the right direction and perhaps new State Constitutions would also result in change locally that would shift the paradigm.


You're wrong about your

You're wrong about your "feelings" about anarchy. We've not had an anarchistic society at all. It would be welcomed if people only understood it.

Maybe you can start here.

Or even this guy

Anarchy is the answer imho

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Anarchy is a simple enough

Anarchy is a simple enough concept to understand, it means everyone is free to do whatever they are physically able to do. We can debate until the cows come home over what the effects of anarchy are, but frankly we don't have to. That's what the world is. Over and over again people are thrown into that exact scenario. And every single time, without failing ONCE, a gang establishes itself as ruler over the others. Without a liberty-oriented government, there will always be a society of some sort or another that imposes its will on people.

Anarchy simply means without

Anarchy simply means without rulers. When man is allowed to live their life free from another man telling/forcing them how to live according to their collective rules, then we will have liberty. A liberty-oriented government is an oxymoron. No such thing has ever existed.

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown


That Jefferson was a "LOGICAL ANARCHIST". I like that.

Great book

with an interesting concept of resistance cells.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

I like that too!

I like that too!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

who decides who goes to a constitutional convention

and who decides to even have one?

why can't we have our own convention and submit the proposed amendments to the states for ratification?

Who says it has to be state governments to control this process?

The States, but the States answer to THE PEOPLE

its in the Constitution.
I now support a con-con despite clapping enthusiastically at the Rally for the Republic in 2008 when the guy from the John Birch Society gave his speech about blocking a Con-Con.

I mean Switzerland does this every so often and they don't seem to have problems. They have been around longer than the US and certainly seem to appreciate the idea of having to clarify what the heck some guys at least a hundred years ago were talking about. So now, because it is actually IN the Constitution as a remedy, I support it. I think it is time. To those that fear that those in power have been waiting for this opportunity to reshape the USA, I say bring it. Then at least we'll know what the heck they have been planing. The states have to ratify it anyway and that is where we can actually DO something. Via the states.


the state legislators.

You just got PAULED!



I placed a thread along those lines

a few days ago, you'd have thought I farted in church.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

More like you had shit your pants

but you're in good company with this thread poster too.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Oh yes

because I am totally terrorized by a foul mouthed, know nothing wannabe with delusions of grandeur who's proper place would be on the Jerry Springer show.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

BooHoo a Liberal Victim.

This is free market in action, peanut.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

The final word IMO Ron Paul and others on a Con Con

I watch this post and yours in amazement that you have been here for so long and still defend this in this political climate. Asstounding.


Dear Friend:

Thank you for expressing your concern that attempting to roll back the dangerous expansion of government power through constitutional amendment will bring about a constitutional convention. You are indeed correct that a modern constitutional convention, given today's political climate, would be dangerous to liberty by leaving us open to sudden, sweeping change in our government.

I must point out, however, that initiating or passing an amendment is not calling for a constitutional convention, is not an invitation to do so, and is not nearly as dangerous. During the amendment process, we are not any more open to the dangers of a convention than at any other time. We have seen twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution without a convention being called. Amendments are the constitutional and safe way to change our form of government because the particular and limited issue addressed by an amendment requires a long, involved process to change the Constitution for very limited and specific ends. With each proposed amendment there is ample time to point out any apparent threats to liberty and warn our fellow citizens.

Contrast this to the current situation where almost anything can become law if a mere, momentary majority in Congress and the current president agrees. The amendment process is the proper, constitutional way to change our government's power, rather than by arbitrary lawmaking or regulatory rulemaking. Thank you again for your vigilance and dedication to liberty.


Ron Paul


November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

The first CON CON was a CON JOB

Know your history, sending stupid people to do criminal acts for high pay is not a good idea, because YOU get the bill.




"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 whomever you are lending moral and material support is thereby empowered to act, and will act, to seal your fate into absolute despotism, pretending to be your friend, then it may be a good idea to stop lending that moral and material support.

If on the other hand you are investing in honest money, then you will be a part of the POWER that Ends the FED.

If you are no longer going to "provide the means by which you suffer" you will, somehow, End the IRS.

If those criminals then invade your country you had better have your troops home because you will need them.

Con Con was a Con Job the first time, those who expect to improve their situation with another Con Con Con Job are lunatics.

If your representative says that they will End the FED, End the IRS, and bring the Troops Home, they may be lying, so what ensures the reaching of those necessary goals?

End the FED by inventing, producing, and maintaining competitive Legal Money, at the local level, the State level , or Country level, if it is competitive then there will be a choice to use brand x or brand y, and all those choices made by all those people choosing will be the voluntary FORCE that FORCES the producers of Legal Money to improve quality and lower cost, or lose market share.

If you can't see that, then you are in no condition to be sending a representative to any legal proceeding of any kind, let alone sit on a jury to judge anyone who may, as a matter of fact, be refusing to send any more of their hard earned surplus wealth to a criminal gang called the IRS.

If the idea is to End the IRS, in your State, and thereby return your State to a Sovereign Legal Entity, instead of an Incorporated part of the Consolidated Government, then stop paying the extortion fee somehow, and do so legally, since the actual LAW forcing you to pay Federal Income Tax does not exist, as already proven in so many court cases where the Juries knew enough to demand the pertinent evidence that could inculpate the presumed to be innocent defendant NO LAW EXISTS.

Your enemies of Liberty may be your neighbor, due to ignorance.

Your peers, unfortunately, are fools.

You want them to be sent to a Con Con?

To do what?

End the FED?

End the IRS?

Bring the troops home?

Write a better Constitution?

The first one was so full of holes the actual Friends of Liberty of the day protested against it, leading to the Bill of Rights.

If the criminals do not abide by the Constitution as it exists, what makes you think that the criminals are going to abide by a new piece of paper signed by a bunch of fools or criminals?


Out with the old boss, in with the new boss, all criminals?

Some know they are criminals and others are clueless criminals?

If you want to bring the troops home, stop dressing them up in uniforms made in China and sending them to be used by the criminals.

How is that for a fresh start?



The Constitution we have is perfectly good...especially given that that any Con Con now formed would consist of mostly the cabal's minions. Nope...no Con Con wanted for the foreseeable future...

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

you are wrong

Obviously the constitution has failed, take a look at the Texas constitution for a true constitution.

You just got PAULED!

Could You Point Out

...errors it corrects and how it differs from the Federal Constitution and results it has led to?


The Constitution hasn't failed the people

the people have failed the Constitution. No laws can restrain men that wish to break them.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Exactly who would be your delegates?

The criminals currently running the asylum. We don't need a constitutional convention now or anytime in the near future.

For a detailed analysis on why a ConCon should be a NoNo to us read the following.