Comment: There is only 1 problem I know of with Dwayne

(See in situ)

There is only 1 problem I know of with Dwayne

Dwayne thinks a Constitutional Convention would be a good thing (at least at that time). How do I know this? Because I debated him on the subject on a facebook "notes" page. The position he took does not preclude me from supporting him as a candidate nor should it preclude him in anyone else's view. The debate appeared on my friends "notes" page containing an article I wrote on the 17th amendment. I may have convinced him otherwise, I'm not sure, I hope so. Here is just a snippet from the debate:

>>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

Here is a link to the "notes" page that contains my article and the entire above debate (note: you may have to expand the comments to see the debate):


Paul C. Hanson