10 votes

Beware Article V! Understanding the Risk of a Constitutional Convention!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Way better than a concon

The amount of educating and organizing that would be required to make sure that pro-liberty people are in charge of an "amend-con"/"con-con" would be much better spent organizing and educating at our State and local levels.

Wolves in sheep's clothing

Beware plans from Zionist fanatics who have nothing but vicious insults for Ron Paul and other liberty defenders, purporting to want to "save" liberty. 

A convention becomes a super-legislature, for all practical purposes overridingthe legislatures that created it. Much like in a local annual town (or township or borough) meeting, the town citizens become the legislative body for the duration of that meeting. They even elect a moderator from their own ranks who presides during the session.They can propose binding legislation and change any existing law within the town's jurisdiction. In the case of a national convention there are no limits to its jurisdiction, especially when one considers precedent.

A convention is NOT necessary, of course, in order to amend the Constitution. The States can propose amendments separately. Once 3/4 sign on, the amendment is in force.

If you think we can't get the right amendments via that method, then we certainly won' 't get them in the rush of a new "amending convention," with every nutty special interest, backed by the monopoly media, calling for its favorite form of tyranny to be written into the Constitution. (Picture a "Trayvon Martin amendment" outlawing Stand Your Ground laws, for example; a new "voting rights" amendment stripping States of what remains of their power to manage their own elections; a "Right to Single Payer Health Care" amendment; etc. etc.)

We do clearly have to do something. I would wholeheartedly support a campaign to repeal the 17th Amendment; it just takes one State to kick it off. (hello, Texas?) I might support a non-Article V convention of State delegates for the express, limited purpose of issuing resolutions against, say, unconstitutional wars or spying on American citizens. Or perhaps, taking back the State militias and disbanding the standing army since there has been no declaration of war and there is no "Department of Defense" or "Pentagon" in the Constitution. (yeah, i know that's a tough one...) Or discussing ways to *bypass and de-fund* the current Washington oligarchy by means of interstate compacts only?

And what about citizen grand juries? Any way we could bring that back at the federal level, if only for the purpose of investigating and indicting the criminals?

Meant to correct this ....

Careless mistake ,..A convention IS necessary if States propose amendments. Only the congress may propose single amendments to the States.

A Const. Conv. can be used for both good and bad...

However, at this point in time even if a cons. conv. were to happen and create a good amendment and/or eliminate a not-so-good one, it really wouldn't change much.

Because the problem we have now is...

The Gov't ignores the constitution anyway!!

Maybe we should put some teeth back into the Bill of Rights, before we go adding or subtracting any amendments, as if the constitution matters now anyway.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

There was one just a couple years back

Bob Shulz convened it. Very proper parliamentary process was observed. All very organized, delegates from all 50 states, tons and tons and tons of resolutions drafted.

Anybody remember it? No? What's that tell you right there?

Most of those who think so actually don't and most of those who think sew actually rip.

Was it called by the state legislatures?

No. It was a "model UN" type of mental-****urbation activity.

What do we have to lose?


1) Term Limits: Limit service in both the House and Senate to 12 years. Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit. But the past 100 year has proven that to be false. As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power. Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.

2) Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.

3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

4) Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.

5) Limiting bureaucracy: He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.

6) Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.

7) Limiting Federal power to take private property

8) Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created. However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process. If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.

9) State Authority to Override Congress: A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures. The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.

10) Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.

I see no other choices. Hell, I'm not even convinced that the voting machines aren't being hacked. I still don't understand how Obama won despite a precipitous drop in turnout among his main constituencies.

I despise Levine. But if this idea could be tweaked enough to take care of the monetary system and clear up any ambiguities over the power to make war, i see a lot of potential here.

Limiting Mechanism???

What language within Article V limits the authority of any Article V convention to only a few amendments. Also, would you trust the Legislatures of more than a few States to appoint delegates that would support liberty centered amendments. I, for one, would not trust my State Legislature to properly leash a dog, much less unleash delegates upon the people of the United States.

Bad Idea

The following is copied from my comments on the Levin thread on the same general topic.

Hi DP'ers

This is from a debate I had on facebook concerning this subject so the wording will be based on that and not directly related to the post here so if some of it seems off, that is why:

>>Paul Hanson: Hi Dwayne, The short answer to the reason why an article 5 convention should never be called is that it cannot be "controlled" to just say a balanced budget amendment or a term limits clause.
November 27, 2011 at 8:42pm · Like · 5

>>Thomas Mick: The Convention of 1787 was just supposed to amend the Articles of Confederation, yet an entirely new Constitution came out of it.

Trusting today's politicians with that power would not be in the best interest of our liberty... there are no rules or limitations in a convention and David Rockefeller has a new form of government waiting in the wings...

Constitutional Convention | Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America
November 27, 2011 at 8:47pm · Like · 10

>>Dwayne Stovall: Mr. Mick, I can see your position concerning the use of the word "State", but I still don't see the problem with a Convention of the States. It seems almost impossible to come out of a Convention with proposals that would actually pass the ratification process. Anything clearing that hurdle would most surely have support beyond reproach.

I apologize for my slow responses; I think my computer is about to crash...
November 27, 2011 at 8:53pm · Like · 1

>>Thomas Mick: You're misunderstanding me when I say there are no rules. In a convention there is no longer a ratification process unless the Convention determines it exists... the Convention of 1787 defined the ratification in Article V, and defined the process of ratifying the work of the Convention in Article VII...

Another Convention would not be bound by the terms of the Constitution.
November 27, 2011 at 8:55pm · Like · 7

>>Paul Hanson: Dwayne, the precedent to support my argument has been set. It was set during the original convention. That convention was called to "amend" or "fix" the articles of confederation. What we wound up with was something entirely different and profound. Do you really want Nancy Pelosi to have a hand in writing our new constitution? And if you don't think the morons in the California legislature would send her as one of their reps to the convention, I'll refer you back to the term "morons" just 24 words ago.

Some say that the ratification process would stop a "bad" constitution from being adopted. Of course this argument rises or falls on the fact that no changes to the article 5 and article 7 processes for ratification are made during the convention. Since the convention can't be limited, the ratification process could be changed to a self ratifying document once approved by 50% of convention attendees or 20 drunken monkeys who recently escaped from the local zoo seated around a bar in Boston watching a red sox game.
November 27, 2011 at 8:59pm · Unlike · 8

>>Dwayne Stovall: I'm not sure I follow. Article five appears to clearly set the rules of a convention. How is it that a convention, that by our own Constitution is designed to only allow for "proposals", can be so limitless? To pass either of the allowable manners of ratification, wouldn't the support for an amendment have to be overwhelming?
November 27, 2011 at 9:04pm · Like

>>Dwayne Stovall: That is to say, even if what you say could happen, were to happen, it would still take a 3/4 ratification vote first to change the process. Right?
November 27, 2011 at 9:09pm · Like

>>Dwayne Stovall: I guess we could assume that only a few likeminded states would show up and control everything, but I think the odds are astronomically against that happening.
November 27, 2011 at 9:18pm · Like · 1

>>Paul Hanson: Dwayne, I think I answered this before but please allow me just to highlight a few things you may not have thought of.

First off, because the precedent has been set by the first one, any limitations can be thrown out by the first vote of the convention attendees. The first one was limitless and there is a strong argument for precedence to allow the same of any subsequent convention. Could the supreme court stop it? Not if there no longer was a supreme court (do you see where I'm going with this, they could literally remove all obstacles to their silly whims).

Honestly Dwayne, do you really feel that our current state legislatures would select even 1 representative to the convention that would be worthy of latching the shoe buckle of the lowliest member of the original one? Have you taken stock of this current cast of bought and paid for clowns? Dwayne, the global cabal that wishes to enslave us would like nothing better than an article 5 convention call. And make no mistake about it, they would make sure that a majority of the representatives sent to any such convention would have to kiss david rockefellers pinky ring prior to their selection.

Also, I've already answered your previous question about the ratification process. Article 5 itself can be changed thus altering the ratification process by "3/4th's of the states" to a self ratifying document approved by a mere majority of the globalists in attendance of any such convention.

Is your passion for an article 5 convention so fervent that you would be willing to risk our freedom and liberty to such a folly? Even if part of what I'm saying is true (all of it is actually true), doesn't that that thought alone scare you enough to shudder at thought of the results of such an epic opportunity for the likes of our current "servants" (read here "morons") to tinker with the very foundations of our current system? I mean just imagine all the hype of the liberal media alone. It would be Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey on an unprecedented scale. That is freakin scary enough in and of itself. Really think about this long and hard Dwayne. If you do, I'm sure you will plainly see that beginning with something more simple and less drastic is a more appropriate choice.

A repudiation of the 17th is an excellent choice for a place to start and should correct many of the flaws in the current system and an informed electorate should be able to correct the rest. In the case of a senate elected by the state legislatures, if the Senators vote for an un-balanced budget, they get recalled by the legislature, never to be heard from again. If they are there too long, the legislature can correct that and voila! the term limits problem has been corrected as well, at least as far as the senate goes. These are usually the 2 biggest reasons for a convention call and I just corrected them both with my original article.

A convention call should be a last resort, not the first remedy pulled form the first aid kit. And, unless it is the year of our Lord 1787, should NEVER be pulled from the first aid kit even as a last resort. Should another convention ever occur, I can assure you your freedoms and liberties will be nothing but a smoking pile of rubble on the ash heap of history because that is exactly what those who are really in power (read here the global banking cabal) actually want. Thoughts of anything more hopeful are just pipe dreams. Trust me on this Dwayne, I've done the research and paid my dues in this battle for freedom and liberty. I penned my original article 1994 or so and have been in this fight even prior to that. Sincerely, Paul C. Hanson
November 27, 2011 at 9:54pm · Unlike · 7

>>Thomas Mick: Until we restore State representation in the Senate, nothing can be done about the other wrongs... which is why the globalists cut the legislatures out in the first place. It is much easier to undermine a democracy than a republic.
November 29, 2011 at 7:03am · Like · 5

>>Dwayne Stovall: Mr. Mick and Mr. Hanson, as far as I can tell, there were no guidelines restricting the first convention. The rules for future conventions came with the adoption of the new Constitution.

I can't see how the first convention set a precedent. The creation of Article 5 removes the gray area. What am I missing?
November 29, 2011 at 7:13am · Like

>>Dwayne Stovall: Mr. Mick, this is no scholarly read, but it is where I think we left the track.

Why we are controlled by lobbyists and special interest groups.
Does everyone understand that according to the Constitution (Article I, Section...See More
By: Growing Up Colorless
November 29, 2011 at 7:17am · Like · 1

>>Paul Hanson: Dwayne, A former chief justice of the supreme court of the united states disagrees with your thoughts that a convention can't become a runaway convention. If you insist on me doing the research, I will. I know that such a treatise, penned by a former justice of SCOTUS exists and if asked to produce it I will. however, I've done all this before and have been aware of it's existence for over 15 years since first looking into con-con calls. Maybe it's time for others to carry a pail or 2 of water in this fight and do some research on their own.

It may be Berger (Burger) Warren. I don't quite remember for sure. If you think your legal opinion carries more weight than a former SCOTUS justice, then there is nothing more I can say or do here and I wash my hands of the matter. Paul.
November 30, 2011 at 1:54pm · Like · 5

>>Thomas Mick: I'm in the same boat as you, Paul... I am so tired of doing other people's research for no compensation whatsoever... even when it is presented many times, the effort goes unappreciated.
November 30, 2011 at 1:59pm · Like · 4

>>Thomas Mick: Lobbyists have existed as long as the republic in one form or another... the problem we have, Dwayne... is that we continue to elect people with little or no moral compass and capacity to say NO.

When we start electing people who regard their oath as more than a formality... I believe that then we will begin to see changes for the good... AFTER we repair the damage this plan addresses.
November 30, 2011 at 2:02pm · Like · 4

>>Paul Hanson: Dwayne, Here is a couple of quotes for you that I found in the very brief search I conducetd. Total time = 17 minutes:

"One of the most serious problems Article V proposes is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights." - Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg.

Here is the one from Berger I mentioned earlier:

"There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention would make its own rules and set its own agenda." - Chief Justice Warren Berger.

The latter quote is just a portion of a larger treatise on the subject that I haven't located yet. Should I decide to search further and find the commentary, I may provide a link.

You don't become the Chief Justice SCOTUS by being a mental midget in the law or the U.S. Constitution. So if you still think you know more about the law and the U.S. Constitution than The Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Warren Berger, I'll leave you to your folly. I will just pray that any efforts you personally or anyone else for that matter make in helping along a successful con-con call fail miserably. I will also actively lobby and/or oppose any such fresh con-con call in my state and others with every fiber of my being (which I have already done in the past, successfully, BTW). Sincerely, Paul C. Hanson
November 30, 2011 at 2:33pm · Like · 3

>>Paul Hanson:

Constitutional Convention Can Not Be Controlled
In recent months the action most heard in state houses across the nation is a ri...See More
November 30, 2011 at 2:59pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

>>Paul Hanson: Dwayne, Here is probably the key thing to take away from The New American article I linked to above having to do with ratification by the states after the document has been hacked to death. It supports my 20 monkeys in a bar in Boston theory of ratification. It also directly relates to precedent. Although you may not completely grasp what I meant by my harping on precedent in all my earlier posts, I can assure you that the people who wish to enslave us do. Here is the pertinent part of the TNA article:

"And there is more. Concerning the argument that no matter what the delegates produce, the states still must ratify it — thus serving as a safeguard to tomfoolery, consider this fact: The Articles of Confederation required that any changes be ratified by 100% of the states. That was the document that was the law of the land — until something else was put into place. But, when the new Constitution was put to the states for a vote of ratification, suddenly they needed only two thirds to approve it. Why? The fact is, Article V of the new Constitution was used — even before the Constitution which contained it was approved. Now, what do you think Reid and Obama and company would do with that precedent? What if the new document produced by the Con Con said ratification only required a vote of Congress — or of some special commission? The precedent of 1787 says that could happen. So much for protection by the states."

I pray you see the folly of this path sooner rather than later. The 17th amendment repudiation method is a much safer route. It also turns the clock back on court decisions and any Senate actions taken since the first senators were fraudulently seated. That's around 1917. That oughtta take us back to the basics.
November 30, 2011 at 8:38pm · Like · 3

Me, present day: The above debate occurred in comments below an article I wrote on removing the 17th amendment. I edited out one comment that didn't apply to the con-con call but the rest is intact. As you can see, one side was backed with facts, precedent, logic and legal opinions that matter. The other with passion, pleadings and a true desire to change things, albeit with a dangerous approach. I don't think I convinced him (not due to what I presented but because his passion overruled logic) but any others who read and can think clearly and logically on the subject may be, and educating those that can is the only way to truly fix this Republic.

Here is a link to the facebook note containing my original article and the comments below which contain the debate:


Hope this helps answer some questions about what to do when faced with a call for an article 5 convention.


Paul C. Hanson

This guy is a fear monger.

A Constitutional Convention has no power that the Congress doesn't have when it comes to changing the Constitution. All it can do is propose amendments. Just like Congress can. Considering the fact that the Congress has a very low approval rating, how can a Constitutional Convention be more dangerous to our liberties than they are?

There is nothing in the Article V that says Congress has the authority to pick the delegates or set the rules for picking delegates. The Tenth Amendment then would come into play at that point. The states pick their delegates and send them to the convention. The states individually determine how many they send. It doesn't matter how many delegates they send. Each state will have an equal vote on the matter of proposed amendments. The Convention would set its own rules for its proceedings.

What this guy fears from a "runaway convention" is amendments that would shift the power away from D.C. and back to the states may be proposed. These are amendments that would never get through Congress though they might pass 3/4 of state legislatures. It is not a threat to our liberties that these guys fear from a Con-con; It is a threat to their power.

For instance, much mischief has come from the SCOTUS broad interpretation of the commerce clause and the supremacy clause. Even its role as final interpreter of the Constitution's meaning is not in the Constitution. That is a role for the states, not the federal government. The clauses could be clarified or restricted, as SCOTUS power could be restricted by amendments proposed at a Con-con. Such amendments could never get through Congress.

On the topic of "withdrawing" or "rescinding" a request for a Con-Con, there is a question as to whether that can be done. A state legislature cannot rescind its authorization of a constitutional amendment. A new amendment has to be offered. Once requested, a state may not be able to withdraw that request for a Con-con either.

I am all for a con-con because the current system is not working. It is garbage in garbage out and the repeating something over and over and expecting a different result is crazy.

Voting the right people in is impossible. When has it ever worked? States have to exercise their authority in being able to protect their people from national threats to their liberty. It has been a long-standing problem is states, like individuals, will willingly surrender their people's birthright of liberty for a mess of pottage. If doing so will give them an advantage or an avenue to get into the pockets of people in another state, they will do it.

In my opinion, a con-con is our only non-violent alternative to just bending over and taking it.

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

My fear is having a Con Con without the Liberty movement

in the lead will result in failure.

show me someone who has never failed

and I will show you someone who has never accomplished anything.

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

Genuine Liberty or Counterfeit

There is a POWER at work that can be called Monopoly, but that is ONE word, and the word does not constitute the actual POWER at work, in fact the word tends to hide the actual POWER at work, so the word is POWERFUL in that sense: deception.


That is a source of words describing the first Con Con Con Job.

Here is a "free" version:


The counterfeiters, the monopolists, may stage a second Con Con Con Job, but if that group does that, it will be counterfeit, so it will serve the Monopoly POWER.

The Monopoly Power can be called The FUND, as in The International Monetary FUND.

Again mere words, and words fail to hold actual people to accurate accounting of what really happens as all the victims, targets, slaves, workers, honest productive people, are taken by these counterfeiters, taken to the cleaners, taken while those who take laugh all the way to their fraudulent, monopoly, counterfeit, bank, where the FUND is kept secret, and False Fronts are built to shunt any defensive POWER into non productive action.

Case in Point:


That is the official account, in Federal Reserve Note Denomination.

That is evidence, clear inculpatory evidence, of a crime in progress.

Where did that crime begin?




"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits.

"In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."

Those who were wise to the counterfeiters, the monopolists, the Central Banker Cartel, let their views be known, before the dupes were duped, before the mass of mankind was swallowed up with the lie that those who earn credit are those who owe everything to the criminal counterfeiters, the criminal monopolists, and the criminal Central Bankers at their criminal FUND.



"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."

Before those Central Bankers regained their Tyranny, their Despotism, with that Con Con Con Job, and those False (promised to be broken) Federalist Papers, there was a Revolution that did create a Free Market Government under The Articles of Confederation.

Look right here:


What does it say?

It says that it is the duty of free people to disconnect from tyrannical "governments".

What does the Constitution do right here:


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

That makes the duty of all free people illegal.

What was one of the first examples of how Tyrants operating in protection of their POWER to enslave everyone was perpetrated under the so called Constitution?

Look here:


Hamilton, Washington, John Q Adams (Alien and Sedition Acts), and at first Madison were Federalists (A.K.A. Tories, Central Bankers, Monarchists, Slave Traders, Criminals).

Madison turned his coat back to BLUE for Liberty (until just before his death, according to one source, and then he turned back to RED for RED COAT).

What is a RED COAT?


If there will be a return to Liberty and many Constitutionally Limited Republics joined voluntarily into a defensive pact or Federation, it will require that The People stop believing in the Central Bank lie that is a claim on honest productivity as DEBT owed to them exclusively.

Who is them?

Those who live by that lie, they know it is a lie, who believes the lie?

What lie?

Short memory?

This lie:


Same as this one:


Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Any questions?


Well Hambergers a Houdini convention

not even in my worst nightmares did it ever occur to me just how vulnerable our freedoms and liberties are; how easy it would be for special interest to hijack our country in short amount of time and little resistance; to boot.

The whole media, congress, elections, really is complete bs and literal is a curtain for entertainment-distraction. Just so we don't see the elephant in the room.

Our founding father... they literal set us up for physical confrontation. Make u wonder what the finally straw is going to be.

Really i just want someone to point out just how wrong or misinformed I am so I can sleep.

"The slogan Press On! Has solve and always will solve the problems of the human race".
"Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

'No' to the Convention!

1. Only informed and agile voters can make the real change by electing pro-liberty, 'small government' candidates. Without this, no effort will do good. This is why Ron Paul's campaign(s) was more about the brush-fires of liberty, rather then the final score.

2. Constitution, as of today, is already as good as it gets and assumes agile and informed voters. If the voters are not informed and agile - no law, no man, no institution can protect their liberties.

3. Anything can happen behind close doors, we all know how many times an anti-liberty law was passed with 90%, let alone 3/4, or 2/3 of votes in either house. Hint: see how GOP establishment looks at NSA affair.

4. Mark Levin: I listened to his show a fair amount of time. In my opinion, he's a big government conservative (not a typical neo-con though). He was in strong opposition to Ron Paul at almost any point, called him 'Ru Paul' endorsed Santorum instead. An interesting event to me was when someone called in to his show and complained against the FED, Levin basically cut him off, saying something like: 'what, who'd you like to see in charge instead - Soros?!'

5. If I was a betting man, I'd predict that Ron Paul would be against this idea.

Do people here get how an Article V convention works?

Explain step by step how such a convention will lead to a rewrite of a tyrannical constitution. Step by step, from the calling of the convention to ratification. Explain how it will be hijacked.

Then I'll explain why you're not getting it.

thank you for this post

the only way I would support such a thing is if they give the right to leave to those who disagree with their new constitution.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

if a new constitution is proposed...

Any state not ratifying it does not become a member of the new union. That is how it works.

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

that is the way it SHOULD work

but I don't honestly think that the right to secede is going to be re-granted to the states, now that the government has taken the official position that the states can't do that. A new constitutional convention would mean the current Constitution (the one that is only partially followed) would be in effect until the new one gets ratified. Like it or not, the Supreme Court's most recent pronouncements on the issue are that our current Constitution does not give the states that right. Do I agree with it? Nope. It doesn't mesh with the original intent of the framers. But after the civil war era amendments, and the caselaw that followed, that is the direction the Court has gone.

What i propose is that if an INDIVIDUAL doesn't like the new form, that person should be allowed to leave. And I don't give that a rats-a$$ chance of happening, either.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Ok, I know what needs to be done

But the question is, can it be accomplished?

The 16th Amendment has to be repealed using the process in Article V. If the G.O.P. would put, "Repeal the 16th Amendment" on its platform, I am convinced it would work. Then they would have to do it.

1.) This would make the I.R.S. unconstitutional.

2.) Since the I.R.S. is involved in the enforcement of the A.C.A. (Obama care), repealing the 16th amendment would render the A.C.A. obsolete.

The 2014 Congress is going to be way different.

My hope is that people respond by saying, "Challenge Accepted."

Whom do you trust?

Do you really trust your legislature to select delegates who would support an agenda geared toward liberty? Remember that you are NOT in charge of selecting delegates to any convention of states.

Each state decides

on who and how delegates are chosen.

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

What do we have to lose at this point?

We're getting tyranny already. IMO it is preferable to put it in writing rather than to ignore existing laws. I mean to say that the constitution really isn't restraining anyone anyway.

They call it a con-con for a

They call it a con-con for a reason. Because it's a con. They want it to permanently put the United States Constitution to rest.

We've already had a Constitutional Convention. I see no good reason to change it.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

So just keep masterbating to the Daily Paul?

Will that work?

other than

this one is not working in its current state.

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

What Levin

is advocating is not a convention in the traditional sense.

He is saying that the Constitution allows 2/3 of the states to amend the constitution, so if each state passes identical laws, they amend the Constitution, there is no actual meeting of a group of people, and because of this they could not throw the Constitution out the window.

I did listen to Levin's show

I did listen to Levin's show where he was talking about this.
I don't question his sincerity at this point, though
I am skeptical of his true understanding of the process.

I think we really need to understand this.

What he didn't indicate, was weather he understood the process.

From what I have gathered, the delegates are chosen by rules
made by the Congress.

This has many ramifications. Many of which could spell disaster.

I think we should really get to the facts of how something like this would go.

My current understanding is that it could go VERY badly.

What if Congress decides who the Delegates are?


Donate to the Campaign http://ronpaul2012.com
WNY for Ron Paul Meetup http://meetup.com/wnyforronpaul

I didn't see where Congress

I didn't see where Congress chooses state delegates. It's my understandng that it would be dictated by whatever rules each state has put in place.

New Membership Levels with Greeneville Outfitters - Gear at Cost:

metalhed19's picture

Terrible idea. I can just see

Terrible idea. I can just see it, New 1st Amendment, Central bank and fiat currency. New 2nd Amendment, written permission and license to have a firearm. New 3rd Amendment, Income tax. New 4th Amendment, permanent welfare. New 5th Amendment, Refer to the UN for all national decisions. Etc etc etc

*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"