Constitutional Hall of Shame
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists
There has been a lot of discussion recently about the whether or not we should have an Article V Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. In Article V it clearly states that when two-thirds of the states request a convention Congress shall call for the convention.
Whether or not the convention is a good idea or a bad idea is the not question that needs to be addressed, The question is have the requisite number of states applied for a convention.
The number necessary to trigger the call for a convention is 34. Once that requirement has been met, we need to stop arguing about whether a convention is good or bad and should start working on having the people organize a convention that will be in the control of the people and not the politicians and the financial elite.
The delegates to the convention need to be elected by the people in each of the Congressional Districts. The candidates need to run with no political party affiliation. The state and federal officials should have absolutely nothing to do with the selection of delegates. The Constitution only authorizes two groups of individuals to propose amendments to the Constitution. One group is the members or Congress and the second group consists of the delegates to an Article V Convention. Both groups need to be treated equally under the law. In other words the qualifications for one group needs to be the same as the qualifications of the other.
If you click on the following links will discover that the 49 states have requested a convention and that Congress continues to ignore their Constitutional duty to call for a convention.
On 12,13, and 14 1996 seven of us met to identify suggested changes to the Constitution in the event a Constitutions Convention be held. The suggested changes are contained in my book To Tame a Tyrant. If a Convention should become a reality and if anyone knows any of the delegates I'll gladly provide them a copy of the suggestions.
Walter Myers, firstname.lastname@example.org
Indeed, it seems clear that the federal government is not acting within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. If you have been in the Courts you should know that the Courts do not even attempt to protect your rights. The Courts have become just another revenue source for the rough government.
Due to a corrupted political system nearly all key House and Senate committee chairs are in the pocket of corporations and/or special interests. The few honest Representatives of the people like U.S. Rep. Justin Amash MI District 3 are kept in the dark as much as possible. He was removed from the Congressional finance committee because he stood fast on wanting to balance the federal budget. Now I see that doners to the Republican party are financing another Republican candidate to run against him in the 2014 Primary. Most of this money is coming from out of state so that the international neocons can silence the voice of the people through a real Rep. With big money and control of the media these bastards spread lies and when the average person hears these lies more than 14 times they tend to stick.
My conclusion is that the federal government is beyond fixing at the federal level. If we are to restore or create a government that serves the people we must take the powers from the federal government. Each State must refuse to comply with federal laws that assume powers not specifically delegated to the Central government.
The power to create money (or what we use as money) was delegated to Congress in the Constitution but Congress violated this duty in 1913 when it unconstitutionally delegated their duty to the private bankers know as the Federal Reserve. Since then these world bankers who own the Federal Reserve have been in control of the money supply. With an unlimited supply of money that they create out of nothing, these world bankers control the media and anyone that can be bought.
ND is the only State with it's own State Bank. ND has had it's own State bank since 1919 and has not been effected by the economic bubbles and busts that the rest of the county has been exposed to since 1919. The reason the ND State Legislature created a State bank was in reaction to a bust where Wall Street was foreclosing on ND farmers. It kind of works like a giant credit union where all deposits are kept in the State and all loans are used in State as well. I think that it is time for 50 State Banks which can be done at the State level.
P.S Please support U.S. Sen. Rand Paul's SB209 Bill calling for a full Audit of the Federal Reserve. By exposing that the Fed is responsible the economic bubbles and busts we may be able to End the Fed. It should be noted that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was sold as a means of stabilizing the economy and protecting the value of the money supply. It has done neither. What it did do was take the power of regulating the currency from Congress (which was already mostly bought out by these bankers) and give it to the private bankers. Where in the Constitution does it say that private bankers will have the exclusive divine power to create money and thus control all aspect of our lives????
Dan has it, exactly, right...especially about the Fed. So, anyone thinking that Levin's amendments are a good thing should read what he has to say about the Fed b/c when I read it, it's very clear that he has no intentions of doing anything about the corruption of the Fed. The amendments he proposes aren't even good and they open up pandora's box to a complete progressive takeover of our Constitution.
Take a look at another proposed amendment from Michael Ferris on the Parental Rights amendment. Go to www.parentalrights.org and read Section 3...then ask yourself, how much does this open the door for the govt to say what they think is the "highest order" over and above the parents?
This amendment idea is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS - educate yourselves, please.
This has been a really bad idea and that is why, for decades, many groups (Birch society, Phyllis Schafly, etc.) have warned against the dangers of it...and it is STILL a very bad idea. Here's why.
"Friends of Article V" (who Keith has had on his great show) even explain why the 'convention of the states' is a horrible idea b/c it will not be the voice of the people. Here's Bill Walker's explanation - http://www.foavc.org/reference/file52.pdf. Notice where he states, “convention of the states,” as stated by Levin, is a convention exclusively controlled by the state legislatures without any citizen participation whatsoever."
Now...I will say that I, also, disagree with FOAVC when they state, "amendments work" b/c the 16th amendment didn't work out so well for this Republic and it was never, legally, ratified in the states. So...no..."amendments don't work."
There is much to debate about this but let's just keep it REALLY simple. No matter what they name the convention, it will be called by Congress and we know how that will turn out. Look at what has happened when the RNC/DNC 'calls' their conventions. The delegates have no voice. This will be the same...but the bottom line is to ask yourself the most basic question. "Will amending the Constitution make people stick to it more?"
Judy is right, A Constitutional Convention is a bad idea. What we need is for states to expunge any and all outstanding calls for one. But getting state legislatures to do anything meaningful is contingent on patriotic Americans teaming up and becoming an undeniable political force. Thanks to the Constitution Club the tool for creating the needed team (see www.thecnc.org/Documents/1776.htm) exists. The challenge is to get people to use the communications system to create the team. This brings us back to America's PROBLEM; it being people failure to recognize the importance of James 4:17 and to honor it by doing what's right.
Why is it a bad idea to follow the advice of the founding fathers? Why is it a bad idea to obey the provisions of Article V. I hate to be so blunt,but those that oppose a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution are Constitutional hypocrites.
You can not preserve, protect and defend the Constitution if you refuse to obey all of it. More than the requiste number of states have applied for a convention and it is the duty of Congress to call the convention. Whether you or I think that it is a good or bad idea is not relevant. If 34 states have applied we must either follow the Constitution or we must ignore it.
Your position agrees with Phylis Schafly it opposes the position of James Madison.
I disagree with deciding to amend our constitution after 34 states decide to do so. What will the amendment be that they will meet to consider? If we do not know, they should not meet. Even if the alleged amendment is good in the opinion of conservatives, the federal, I mean central government will ignore it if it limits their power. They ignore the parts of our constitution now that limit their powers. Why would they comply will a new limits on their power? And there is a risk of the constitution being nullified or nearly so. The 10 planks of the communist manifesto may be the new amendment.
I believe "precedent" has done more to destroy this country than just about anything else. The courts wouldn't have us so far off track if they couldn't take each decision and move us further & further away from the "intent" of the constitution. :(
BTW, I found this to be a real eye-opener:
DATES THAT DESTROYED AMERICA
Precedence is a major problem. Many people believe that precedence is part of Common Law. It is not. Precedence is also know as Case Law, which is a contradiction because court cases (wheather decided by a judge or jury) cannot be law because ONLY the legislative branch and the people can make law.
Power-hungry politicians will use case laws, international laws, executive orders, misinterpretations, usurpation, national security and/or emergencies to ignore new and old parts of our USA Constitution.
Compare law and color of law
Case Law is what Lawyer Obama uses to justify his blatantly unconstitutional actions. All he has to do is to site where a past president has violated the Constitution and gotten away with it, and he is free to do so in a similar manner. After LBJ there are thus no restrictions on the president, unless they are as dumb as Nixion
Do laws protect us?
Acts, administrative laws, agreements, bylaws, codes, constitutions, court case law, covenants, doctrines, executive orders, laws, mandates, martial law, merchant/commercial law, ordinances, policies, public policies/law, regulations, restrictions, rules, signing statements, statutes ("laws, etc.") are only words on paper.
Laws, etc. are sometimes selectively enforced by politicians (police, legislatures, administrators/executives, judges, staff and other public servants). Often politicians and rich people get away with crimes.
Enforcers are bribed or threatened by violators so violators may avoid being punished.
Laws, etc. are altered by "case law", other laws, etc., new laws, etc., regulations, misunderstanding, misinterpretation and/or corrupt politicians.
Some laws, etc. are made complicated so people will violate laws, etc. so government can fine violators to collect money.
Politicians tend to expand on the current laws, etc., thereby usurping power.
Some politicians make up "law" for certain people or certain situations just because they can.
Some laws, etc. are made for corporations, unions and/or organizations and therefore are for their benefit only.
Some laws, etc. are made to empower only politicians or provide them with job security.
Many laws, etc. are NOT made by politicians who are elected by the people so there is no representation nor accountability.
Some laws, etc. are made because people (1+- %) get greedy, irresponsible and/or lazy and violate someone’s rights. The typical "solution" to this bad behavior is to make a law to ban the bad behavior or what led to it. But bad people do not care about laws, etc. Moral people do not need laws, etc., but they are much more likely to not violate any laws, etc. So the people who laws, etc. are made for ignore the laws, etc. and the moral people who do not need laws, etc. try to comply with laws, etc..
No human can find, read, understand, remember and comply with every "applicable" changing city, county, state and national law, etc..
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood..." James Madison in Federalist Paper 62
So do laws, etc. protect us? No. Sometimes they have the opposite effect.