Mt. Vernon Assembly working 24/7 to convene constitutional convention!

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
1,986
Reaction score
386
Points
130
SEE: Reflections on the Mt. Vernon Assembly

By Michael Farris

"We are beginning to reach critical mass in our efforts to use Article V of the Constitution to rein in the power of the federal government. The Mount Vernon Assembly is one of the major steps in that effort."

Read Michael’s article and one immediately detects he has no intention to have a productive and respectful discussion on the issue by immediately demeaning his opponents, claiming they have” increased both the loudness and shrillness of their long-standing claims…”

Michael continues: ”Here is why their arguments are doomed to fail: 1. They are based on faulty history. The original Constitution was not adopted as the result of a runaway convention. Their entire argument is premised on this fallacy. 2. They have to convince state legislators that we can't trust state legislators.

Faulty history? The truth is, the convention ignored the agreed upon purpose for which the convention of 1787 was called which was to revise the Article of Confederation to make them adequate to the exigencies of the Union. As a matter of historical fact three of the States [New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York] specifically expressed limiting the convention for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. They did not authorize drawing up an entirely new Constitution during the convention. And this is what is referred to as a “runaway convention”.


Getting back to the claim of “faulty history”, Michael’s assertion is immediately proved to be false by reading from The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 1] which documents the limitations to be followed by the Convention’s Delegates. New Hampshire’s being crystal clear on the purpose being for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.


STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. In the Year of our Lord 1787.

An Act for appointing Deputies from this State to the Convention proposed to be holden in the City of Philadelphia, in May, 1787, for the Purpose of revising the federal Constitution


By his Excellency, James Bowdoin, Esq., Governor of the Commonwealth of [L. S.]Massachusetts.

To the Hon. Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King, and Culeb Strong, Esqrs., Greeting:

Whereas Congress did, on the 21st day of February, A. D. 1787, resolve, "That, in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient that, on the second Monday in May next, a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several states, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the states, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union;" And whereas the General Court have constituted and appointed you their delegates, to attend and represent this commonwealth in the said proposed Convention, and have, by a resolution of theirs of the 10th of March last, requested me to commission you for that purpose;--



And so, the truth is, there was, what many call, a “runaway convention” which decided to draw up an entirely new Constitution and government, and it ignored the limitation of merely revising the Articles of Confederation as instructed.


Michael also claims opponents of a convention would ”have to convince state legislators that we can't trust state legislators.” That is not the argument Michael. The argument is, should “we the people” really trust state legislatures to convene a constitutional convention when every single one has working in concert with our federal government to undermine and subjugate the defined and limited powers granted to our federal government? Which state legislature has not accepted federal funds in return for imposing federal mandates upon the people within their states which are not within the defined and limited powers granted to Congress? How many states have state pensions which are unfunded and a ticking time bomb? Would state legislatures not welcome the federal government assuming these debts in return for additional powers being granted to our federal government? Let us not forget that part of adopting our existing constitution was made possible by having the federal government assume the various state Revolutionary War debt!


What is very scary about the call for a second constitutional convention is, there are a number of very, very dangerous and well-funded groups behind this call. And they refuse and/or avoid public events in which a spokesman of theirs is paired with an opponent for a spirited debate concerning the pros and cons, and very real dangers of calling a second constitutional convention. For example, Glenn Beck had State Senator David Long on today to sell the calling of a convention with no one knowledgeable to put his feet to the fire. And this seems to be the pattern being followed. The conservative opposition to calling a convention seems to be shut out of the debate, and this in itself is cause for alarm.

In any event, James Madison warned us about calling a convention under Article V as follows:


“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 partisans 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 foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable 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

Do we really want to convene a convention to give those who now hold federal and state power the opportunity to make constitutional, that which is now un-constitutional? Do the countless miseries we now suffer spring from defects in our existing Constitution, or are each traceable to the lack of the America People rising up and demanding their existing Constitution and its legislative intent be strictly observed and enforced by those who hold federal and state power? And who would be in control of a convention should one be called? Would it not be the very snakes who now cause our sufferings?

JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

 

The2ndAmendment

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,756
Reaction score
2,431
Points
245
Location
In a dependant and enslaved country.
Look on the bright side, if the plutocracy annihilates our Constitution with their own authoritarian/progressive bullshit, then We the People have an obligation to use our Second Amendment rights to restore the original Constitution. Recruitment would be pretty simple here, and a great many military members would defect to our side.

GG
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
1,986
Reaction score
386
Points
130
.
I suggest those who are indifferent to the call for a convention read the following article. It may cause you to think and start asking some very important questions.
Constitutional Convention Call Redux - Who Is Behind It


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.
 

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
Look on the bright side, if the plutocracy annihilates our Constitution with their own authoritarian/progressive bullshit, then We the People have an obligation to use our Second Amendment rights to restore the original Constitution. Recruitment would be pretty simple here, and a great many military members would defect to our side.

GG
This gives us a chance to take our country back!
 
Last edited:

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
.
I suggest those who are indifferent to the call for a convention read the following article. It may cause you to think and start asking some very important questions.
Constitutional Convention Call Redux - Who Is Behind It


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.
I didn't read it carefully or all the way through, please pardon me.

Care to elaborate who is behind it?

And, by the way, what is the difference between a Con-Con and a convention to amend the Constitution?

I didn't get the impression the writer understood that an Article 5 convention does not have the danger of spinning out of control the way Constitutional scholars like Mark Levin, for example, assures us a Con-Con undoubtedly would.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,682
Reaction score
19,393
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
It also gives them the chance to rewrite the COTUS in ways THEY choose. A constitutional convention is the LAST thing we need.
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,409
Reaction score
1,990
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
It also gives them the chance to rewrite the COTUS in ways THEY choose. A constitutional convention is the LAST thing we need.
Socialists and fascists are the majority nowadays. The new "constitution" will state:

Article 1​

We hereby adopt the Communist Manifesto in its entirety.



.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,682
Reaction score
19,393
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
Good, this will keep the wanks out of trouble for a while.
Tell them Comrade Starkiev , that your people will crush any constitutional convention which threatens your welfare benefits and Obama Hellcare coverage..
The wanks of the far right and the libertarian wings are raging tonight.





Do you have something meaningful to add to the discussion, or are you limited to pithy rejoinders?
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,409
Reaction score
1,990
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
Good, this will keep the wanks out of trouble for a while.
Tell them Comrade Starkiev , that your people will crush any constitutional convention which threatens your welfare benefits and Obama Hellcare coverage..
The wanks of the far right and the libertarian wings are raging tonight.
By disrupting the proposed Constitutional Convention Elizabeth Warren will promote you to Commissar.(комиссар)
 

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
Mark Levin: States Should Call Convention to Propose Amending Constitution

August 11, 2013 - 11:08 PM

By Terence P. Jeffrey

The Liberty Amendments (CNSNews.com) - Mark Levin, the nationally syndicated radio host who served as chief of staff in the Justice Department during the Reagan Administration, argues in his new book—The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic—that state legislatures should use the authority granted them in the Constitution to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.

“It is the only way out,” Levin said in an interview on CNSNews.com’s Online With Terry Jeffrey. “The federal government, Congress, the Supreme Court, the president, the bureaucracy, they are not going to reform themselves, they are not going to limit their activities. Only we can--through our state representatives from the bottom up.”

Levin’s proposal is based on Article 5 of the Constitution, which says constitutional amendments may be proposed in two ways—either by two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Whichever way an amendment is proposed, however, it cannot become part of the Constitution unless it is ratified by three-quarters of the states.

“It’s time to turn to the Constitution, to save the Constitution, if you love the Constitution, before there is no Constitution,” Levin told CNSNews.com.


Levin says in The Liberty Amendments that he used to oppose the idea of the state legislatures convening a convention to propose constitutional amendments.

“I used to buy the argument that it’s a constitutional convention until I actually read Article V,” said Levin.“There is no constitutional convention. It’s a convention for proposing amendments—proposing amendments.”

“I used to think, well, we’ll have a constitutional convention, the people today aren't nearly as bright as our original Framers, and we’ll have this runaway convention and the change of the government,” said Levin.

But after studying the language and history of Article V, Levin realized this was not the case, and given the current propensity of all three branches of the federal government to ignore the Constitution and its original meaning, he decided the time had come for the state legislatures to call for a convention to propose amendments that would renew the limits on federal power that the Framers intended the original Constitution to impose.

“There can be no runaway convention because three-fourths of the states still need to ratify [the amendments a convention proposes],” said Levin. “But we need to make it clear to the people in Washington that we do have a way out. There is a way forward. The states collectively, pressured by we the people, have enormous power.”



In addition to making the case that the state legislatures should call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, Levin’s The Liberty Amendments also proposes a series of new amendments that Levin believes the convention should put up for ratification.

Some of the constitutional amendments Levin would like to see include imposing a 12-year limit on serving in Congress, returning the election of U.S. senators to state legislatures, requiring Congress to balance the budget and limiting federal spending to 17.5 percent of GDP, limiting federal taxation to 15 percent of an individual's or a corporation's earnings, empowering a special congressional committee to veto regulations issued by federal bureaucracies, prohibiting Congress from compelling anyone to participate in commerce (such as forcing them to buy health insurance), requiring Congress to publish the final text of any proposed legislation at least 30 days before holding a final vote on it, and requiring individuals to present a state-issued photo ID that establishes their identity and citizenship before they are allowed to register or vote.

Here is the transcript of the CNSNews.com interview with Mark Levin about The Liberty Amendments and his proposal that the states call for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution:

Terry Jeffrey: Hi, and welcome to this edition of “Online with Terry Jeffrey” Our guest today is Mark Levin. Mark, of course, hosts a tremendously popular nationally syndicated radio show and is president of the Landmark Legal Foundation. In the Reagan administration, he served Attorney General Ed Meese as chief of staff in the U.S. Department of Justice. He is the author of multiple best-selling books, including Men In Black, Liberty and Tyranny, and Ameritopia. We’re going to talk to Mark today about his new book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. Hey, Mark, thanks for doing this interview.

Mark Levin: Terry, thanks for having me.
This is a lengthy transcript of the interview.

Too long for this thread.

Here's the link.

Mark Levin: States Should Call Convention to Propose Amending Constitution | CNS News

But to be clear, this would not be a Constitutional convention.

It would be a Convention to Amend the Constitution.

BIG DIFFERENCE.
 

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
Tell them Comrade Starkiev , that your people will crush any constitutional convention which threatens your welfare benefits and Obama Hellcare coverage..
The wanks of the far right and the libertarian wings are raging tonight.
By disrupting the proposed Constitutional Convention Elizabeth Warren will promote you to Commissar.(комиссар)
It is not a Constitutional Convention.

It is a Convention to Amend the Constitution.
 

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
It also gives them the chance to rewrite the COTUS in ways THEY choose. A constitutional convention is the LAST thing we need.
Socialists and fascists are the majority nowadays. The new "constitution" will state:

Article 1​

We hereby adopt the Communist Manifesto in its entirety.



.
It is not a Constitutional Convention.

It is a Convention to Amend the Constitution.
 

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
SEE: Reflections on the Mt. Vernon Assembly

By Michael Farris

"We are beginning to reach critical mass in our efforts to use Article V of the Constitution to rein in the power of the federal government. The Mount Vernon Assembly is one of the major steps in that effort."

Read Michael’s article and one immediately detects he has no intention to have a productive and respectful discussion on the issue by immediately demeaning his opponents, claiming they have” increased both the loudness and shrillness of their long-standing claims…”

Michael continues: ”Here is why their arguments are doomed to fail: 1. They are based on faulty history. The original Constitution was not adopted as the result of a runaway convention. Their entire argument is premised on this fallacy. 2. They have to convince state legislators that we can't trust state legislators.

Faulty history? The truth is, the convention ignored the agreed upon purpose for which the convention of 1787 was called which was to revise the Article of Confederation to make them adequate to the exigencies of the Union. As a matter of historical fact three of the States [New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York] specifically expressed limiting the convention for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. They did not authorize drawing up an entirely new Constitution during the convention. And this is what is referred to as a “runaway convention”.


Getting back to the claim of “faulty history”, Michael’s assertion is immediately proved to be false by reading from The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 1] which documents the limitations to be followed by the Convention’s Delegates. New Hampshire’s being crystal clear on the purpose being for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.


STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. In the Year of our Lord 1787.

An Act for appointing Deputies from this State to the Convention proposed to be holden in the City of Philadelphia, in May, 1787, for the Purpose of revising the federal Constitution


By his Excellency, James Bowdoin, Esq., Governor of the Commonwealth of [L. S.]Massachusetts.

To the Hon. Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King, and Culeb Strong, Esqrs., Greeting:

Whereas Congress did, on the 21st day of February, A. D. 1787, resolve, "That, in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient that, on the second Monday in May next, a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several states, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the states, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union;" And whereas the General Court have constituted and appointed you their delegates, to attend and represent this commonwealth in the said proposed Convention, and have, by a resolution of theirs of the 10th of March last, requested me to commission you for that purpose;--



And so, the truth is, there was, what many call, a “runaway convention” which decided to draw up an entirely new Constitution and government, and it ignored the limitation of merely revising the Articles of Confederation as instructed.


Michael also claims opponents of a convention would ”have to convince state legislators that we can't trust state legislators.” That is not the argument Michael. The argument is, should “we the people” really trust state legislatures to convene a constitutional convention when every single one has working in concert with our federal government to undermine and subjugate the defined and limited powers granted to our federal government? Which state legislature has not accepted federal funds in return for imposing federal mandates upon the people within their states which are not within the defined and limited powers granted to Congress? How many states have state pensions which are unfunded and a ticking time bomb? Would state legislatures not welcome the federal government assuming these debts in return for additional powers being granted to our federal government? Let us not forget that part of adopting our existing constitution was made possible by having the federal government assume the various state Revolutionary War debt!


What is very scary about the call for a second constitutional convention is, there are a number of very, very dangerous and well-funded groups behind this call. And they refuse and/or avoid public events in which a spokesman of theirs is paired with an opponent for a spirited debate concerning the pros and cons, and very real dangers of calling a second constitutional convention. For example, Glenn Beck had State Senator David Long on today to sell the calling of a convention with no one knowledgeable to put his feet to the fire. And this seems to be the pattern being followed. The conservative opposition to calling a convention seems to be shut out of the debate, and this in itself is cause for alarm.

In any event, James Madison warned us about calling a convention under Article V as follows:


“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 partisans 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 foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable 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

Do we really want to convene a convention to give those who now hold federal and state power the opportunity to make constitutional, that which is now un-constitutional? Do the countless miseries we now suffer spring from defects in our existing Constitution, or are each traceable to the lack of the America People rising up and demanding their existing Constitution and its legislative intent be strictly observed and enforced by those who hold federal and state power? And who would be in control of a convention should one be called? Would it not be the very snakes who now cause our sufferings?

JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

It is not a Constitutional Convention.

It is a Convention to Amend the Constitution.
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,409
Reaction score
1,990
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
The wanks of the far right and the libertarian wings are raging tonight.
By disrupting the proposed Constitutional Convention Elizabeth Warren will promote you to Commissar.(комиссар)
It is not a Constitutional Convention.

It is a Convention to Amend the Constitution.
Oh, I see.


Mark Levin is a phony constitutionalist. He championed the PATRIOT Act, writing in his previous book that “evidence of widespread civil liberties abuses against American citizens” under that law is “nonexistent.” And he denounced the man who blew the whistle on these jaw-dropping civil liberties abuses of American citizens, Edward Snowden, as a “traitor.” He has also mocked and ridiculed America’s real champion of constitutional liberty, Ron Paul, by calling him “Ru Paul” on his radio show. (Ru Paul is a bizarre, blabbering cross dresser who can be spotted on cable TV).

.
 

Wildman

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
9,054
Reaction score
1,550
Points
245
Location
this Side of Heaven
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution
you mean like who will be firing the NEXT first" shot heard round the world" ??

A History Lesson,
In April, General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts (a REDCOAT) decided to counter these moves by sending a force out of Boston to confiscate weapons stored in the village of Concord and capture patriot leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock reported to be staying in the village of Lexington.
 
Last edited:

KNB

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2013
Messages
4,327
Reaction score
392
Points
48
Who are you going to take your country back from? Liberals? Were liberals the ones running secret torture prisons six years ago? Did a liberal lie to the United Nations and the American voters about the reasons for invading Iraq?

And again, did liberals torture POWs to death in secret torture prisons?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top