Comment: Bad idea...

(See in situ)

Bad idea...

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