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

[johnwk]

Law, even the law of our land, is a living instrument and evolves with the times. Suggesting what Madison or Jefferson knew at the end of their life by reference to documents written decades removed is silly; certainly referring to them as perfect for today is absurd.

Did you come here to troll or do you have something productive to add to the discussion?

JWK



" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

 

[Statistikhengst]

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?

And what EXACTLY is a "Convention of States" supposed to do? Drink tea and eat crumpets, or what?

We had a Convention of States in 1789, and that Convention drafted a thing known as the US Constutition. Familiar with it?

Now, personally, I am not adverse to a 2nd CONSTITUTIONAL Convention, for our founding document needs some important changes, imo.

But a Convention of States? Really?

Hmmmm...

 

[Statistikhengst]

BTW, here is some information on Michael Farris, the writer of the piece about a Convention of States:

Virginia GOP Paid $80K to Far-Right Homeschoolers' Group | Right Wing Watch

But not even Phyllis Schafly likes him:

An Article V convention in our future?

Ouch!!

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Do you?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Law, even the law of our land, is a living instrument and evolves with the times. Suggesting what Madison or Jefferson knew at the end of their life by reference to documents written decades removed is silly; certainly referring to them as perfect for today is absurd.

Did you come here to troll or do you have something productive to add to the discussion?

JWK



" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

That was not trolling. Why not respond to what was said?

 

[johnwk]

.
At the Convention of States Project's website, and under their Frequently Asked Questions the second question presented and then answered is:

What is a Convention of States?

"A convention of states is a convention called by the state legislatures for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. They are given power to do this under Article V of the Constitution. It is not a constitutional convention. It cannot throw out the Constitution because its authority is derived from the Constitution."

The Convention of States Project is absolutely correct that when a convention is called, it is for the specific purpose of “proposing Amendments” [that’s plural], see Article V! But their opinion which then follows is not based upon historical facts and precedent. The fact is, the Convention of 1787, which is the precedent we must rely upon, was called for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. The Delegates to the Convention were not authorized to draw up an entirely new Constitution and new government which they took it upon themselves to do. And after doing so, the Convention also decided to ignore the Articles of Confederation's requirement that a unanimous consent be obtained by the States to alter the Articles. The Convention changed that requirement to an approval by a mere nine states to put into effect the new government and new Constitution they created.

And so, it is disingenuous for the Convention of States Project to make the claim a convention, if called, “cannot throw out the Constitution”. It certainly does have the constitutionally authorized power to propose countless “amendments” which in effect could eviscerate our entire Constitution and created a new system of government if adopted. And judging from historical precedent, the Convention may also propose a method of adoption different than what our existing Constitution currently requires.

It should also be noted that a Justice of the Supreme Court has already confirmed the autonomy of a convention should one be called. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote to Phyllis Schlafly in 1988, regarding another convention: “ I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’


JWK


"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

 

[johnwk]

Law, even the law of our land, is a living instrument and evolves with the times. Suggesting what Madison or Jefferson knew at the end of their life by reference to documents written decades removed is silly; certainly referring to them as perfect for today is absurd.

Did you come here to troll or do you have something productive to add to the discussion?

JWK



" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

That was not trolling. Why not respond to what was said?

Because it has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.


JWK



The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

 

[johnwk]

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

It would be a Convention to Amend the Constitution.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Just for the record, there is an explanation why those who are calling a convention under Article V are making a big ado when this calling is referenced as being a “constitutional convention”, or “Con Con”.


During the 1980s they learned their failed attempt to convene a convention was linked to it being constantly referenced as being a “constitutional convention” or “con con”. These descriptive labels made it very clear that calling a convention would put our entire Constitution on the Convention’s chopping block. And so, those who are still desirous of putting our entire constitution on the chopping block are trying to control the language of the discussion to hide what they are really attempting to do.


Controlling the language of a discussion is a very old and tired socialist/progressive trick, e.g., granting citizenship to those who have invaded our borders is now called “immigration reform”, an innocuous term to hide the real agenda. Another example would be “reproductive freedom” which really means allowing an unborn child to be murdered, or, the latest example is the “Affordable Health Care Act” which hides the true intention of our domestic enemies taking over and controling not only one sixth of our economy, but the medical and health care decisions of every American Citizen!

In any event, our Constitution does not put a “label” on what to call a convention under Article V. It merely states Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments”. Madison, in reference to calling a convention under Article V, called it a “general convention”, and for generations it has been referenced as being a “Constitutional Convention” or “Con Con”, which is a descriptive phrase identifying the calling of “a Convention for proposing Amendments”.

There is no valid argument against calling a convention under Article V a “Constitutional Convention” or “Con Con”, other than to hide what its advocates are really up to.

In any event, I agree with Madison about the dangers of calling a constitutional 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 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


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.

 

[g5000]

And whatever he did to keep us safe and re-shuffle the Middle East 'deck of cards' was okay with me.*

This is exactly the kind of unbelievably flawed thinking which has led us to this point of totalitarianism!

 

[g5000]

As Mojo said, what, ten times (?), this is about a Convention of the States. It is not a Constitutional Convention.

A Constitutional Convention implies the writing of an entirely new Constitution. This carries with it some very obvious hazards. So when you conflate the term "Constitutional Convention", like we see in the topic title, with "Convention of the States", which is what the article in the OP is actually talking about, you do a gross disservice to the movement.

All of our amendments to the Constitution have been achieved through a 2/3 vote in both Houses of Congress proposing said amendments. We have never exercised the other method of 2/3 of the states proposing an amendment.

This is what Levin, et al., are saying they want to do. They have a shopping list of amendments they want to tack onto the Constitution, and they want to do it by convening at least 2/3 of the states at a Convention of States and getting those states to approve the proposal of those amendments.

At this point, it would be helpful for someone to post all of the amendments they wanted tacked onto the Constitution, so we can all decide what the odds are of all or any of them ever motivating the majority of legislators in a supermajority of states going along with them.

My personal opinion is that not one will ever engender that much passion in the majority of the legislatures in that many states.

Remember. You need a majority of legislators in a single state to approve a proposed amendment, multiplied 34 times, multiplied by the number of amendments.

Figure the odds.

 

[JWBooth]

Mental masturbation nothing more, nothing less. I keep seeing that blowhard Levin's name mentioned. Gordon Liddy has more credibility for crying out loud.
If there was the slightest possibility that this pig could grow wings the regime would make sure it never succeeded.

 

[johnwk]

.

Since it has been established that calling a convention under Article V presents a number of dangers and would place the fate of our nation's future in the hands of the very snakes in our federal and state governments who now cause our sufferings, I think it is appropriate to offer our founder's solution which would place the American People in charge of their own destiny. The only question is, will the American people rise to the occasion and confront those who hold federal and state power who use it to circumvent our written constitutions, federal and state, while plundering the wealth which America’s productive citizens and businesses have created?

A suggested solution

Step No. 1, Draw up a formal petition of grievances [See the First Amendment] listing our federal government’s intolerable acts such as imposing Obamacare on the people without their consent via a constitutional amendment.

Step No. 2. Organize a multi-million man march on Washington and formally present copies of the petition of grievances to the President, our House and Senate, and our Supreme Court.

Step no. 3. Will depend upon the action or inaction taken by our federal government and if a large enough segment of our population is willing to take back their government from those who now ignore our written Constitution and impose their will upon the people without the people's consent.

Indeed, these are the steps our Founders took to remove the yoke of King George's tyranny. They petitioned King George for a redress of grievances in a number of documents, prior to taking a more direct and forceful approach e.g., see: Journals of the Continental Congress - The Articles of Association; October 20, 1774

Keep in mind we were warned against submitting to tyranny!

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787. H0W TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS

Is it not time to resist tyranny?

JWK



We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.