The Liberty Amendments

[johnwk]

John you're just going to have to get over the fact that mark knows more about the Constitution then Ron Paul

You are being quite presumptuous. I don't keep up with Ron Paul's views. Perhaps you are correct that Mark knows more about the Constitution than Paul.

JWK

 

[thanatos144]

John you're just going to have to get over the fact that mark knows more about the Constitution then Ron Paul

You are being quite presumptuous. I don't keep up with Ron Paul's views. Perhaps you are correct that Mark knows more about the Constitution than Paul.

JWK

Please you can trey to fool others with your post but I have read your liberaltarian posts and know a Bot when I see one

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

John you're just going to have to get over the fact that mark knows more about the Constitution then [sic] Ron Paul

That’s not saying much.

My dog knows more about the Constitution than Ron Paul.

 

[Cecilie1200]

John you're just going to have to get over the fact that mark knows more about the Constitution then [sic] Ron Paul

That’s not saying much.

My dog knows more about the Constitution than Ron Paul.

I don't doubt that your dog knows more about the Constitution than YOU do, anyway. I would have no trouble believing your dog is the smartest being in your house.

 

[johnwk]

.

The following is in response to Rob Natelson’s article “ The Myth of a Runaway Amendments Convention which appeared in American Thinker on August 29th, 2013.

The truth is, Mr. Natelson does a whole lot of speculation himself, ignores historical facts which exhibit there is real cause to be concerned about calling a constitutional convention to re-write our Constitution, and purposely paints a misleading picture regarding Mark Levin’s call for an Article V convention.

Mr. Natelson wrote:

“The Founders bequeathed Americans a method to bypass the federal government and amend the Constitution … “

This is factually incorrect. After the required number of state legislatures apply for a convention, it is Congress who calls the convention. Likewise, it is Congress who supposedly determines the mode of ratification of what comes out of the convention, and it would be our tyrannical Supreme Court who would pass upon constitutional arguments which may arise. Mr. Natelson is either intentionally and subtly misrepresenting the truth or overlooking the extraordinary manipulative powers which our federal government would have over a convention should one be called.

Mr. Natelson wrote:

“Phyllis Schlafly is a great American and a great leader, but her speculations about the nature of the Constitution's "convention for proposing amendments" are nearly as quaint as Dante's speculations about the solar system. Those speculations simply overlook the last two decades of research into the background and subsequent history of the Constitution's amendment process. They also ignore how that process actually has worked, and how the courts elucidate it”

Mr. Natelson ignores his own speculations regarding an Article V constitutional convention and likewise ignores research, such as my own and others, which were made known in the 1980s and which relied upon historical facts!

Mr. Natelson wrote:

“The Founders provided, in Article V of the Constitution, for a "convention for proposing amendments." They did this to enable the people, acting through their state legislatures, to rein in an abusive or runaway federal government. In other words, the Founders created the convention for precisely the kind of situation we face now.”

Mr. Natelson speculates quite generously that our Founders anticipated the despotism and tyranny now rained down upon the people by their own state Legislatures and Governors who have been working in concert with our federal government to plunder the wealth which America’s businesses, industries and productive citizens have created. How many state Governors and Legislatures willingly accept money from our federal treasury for functions not authorized by our Constitution’s legislative intent, which in turn not only enslaves those who receive such money but makes the state governments dependent upon the federal government's will? Did Mr. Natelson forget the wisdom of Hamilton who wrote the following maxim? A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL ____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers



Mr. Natelson writes

Mrs. Schlafly doesn't think we know much else about the process. She writes, "Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody's guess."

But she's wrong. There is no need to guess. We now know that:

The "convention for proposing amendments" was consciously modeled on federal conventions held during the century leading up to the Constitutional Convention, when states or colonies met together on average about every 40 months. These were meetings of separate governments, and their protocols were based on international practice. Those protocols were well-established and are inherent in Article V.

Once again Mr. Natelson speculates and assumes what took place prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution will be observed. And with regard to legislative intent, which he seems to be associating with protocols of the past, how many times has our federal government and state governmens totally ignored legislative intent in order to impose their whims and fancies upon the people of the United States? Mr. Natelson foolishly suggests legislative intent would be adhered to during an Article V convention’s process. Where was he when the legislative intent of our Constitution was trashed by the Supreme Court in the Kelo decision? Was he drawing up his propaganda to convince us to call another general convention to allow folks in government to re-write our Constitution?

Mr. Natelson writes:

”Each federal convention has been called to address one or more discrete, prescribed problems. A convention "call" cannot determine how many delegates ("commissioners") each state sends or how they are chosen. That is a matter for each state legislature to decide.”

The truth is, subsequent to our existing Constitution being ratified, there has never been an article V convention called and our Constitution is silent on the number of delegates each state may send to a convention. But note, our existing Constitution commands representation in Congress is to be by an apportionment based upon population size. Why would our large “progressive” states like California, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts not be entitled to representation in an Article V convention by the rule of apportionment? And if they are, could they not steamroll their progressive agenda through the convention and force it upon the entire United States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed for ratification? Even worse, could they not require a simple majority vote of the people to effectuate a new constitution, and hail their new government as the people’s “democracy”, in which 51 percent of the voters would be left free to vote away the property and liberties of the remaining 49 percent of the nation’s population.

I point the above out because the Delegates sent to the Convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation which required a unanimous consent by the States to be altered, the Delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did. Is this precedent to be ignored if Mark Levin gets his way and an Article V convention is called?


The bottom line is, there are many un-answered questions regarding the process if an Article V convention is called. But one thing is certain, our existing federal and state governments, the very people who now cause our miseries and ignore our constitutions, would be in total charge of Mr. Levin’s convention, and they would be given the “legal” opportunity to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional, and fundamentally transform the system of government our founding fathers worked to achieve. Perhaps this is why James Madison wrote the following in response to calling an Article V convention:


“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundationsof the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville

JWK



At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.