The Founding Fathers provided us with two methods of amending the Constitution. They provided tswo methods because they knew that the Congress would one day become corrupt and that the states would need to be able to step in a fix the problems that Congress would inevitably create,

Article V does not provide for a Con Con, it provides for a Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. Plan "A" allow Congress to propose amendments and Plan "B" allow the the States to propose Amendments via a Convention.

When two-thirds of the states request a Convention for the purpose of proposing Amendments, Congress must call for the Convention or violate the Constitution.

The Convention only has the authority to propose amendments. The adoption of any proposed Amendment would require the approval of 38 of the states. This is the check the Founders gave us to prevent bad amendments from being adopted.

If the delegates were agents of the Obama Administration proposed bad amendments the states would reject them. The power to amend the Constitution would be in the hands of people in the 50 states.

Congress currently controls which Amendments the States are allowed to consider. Congress is controlled by the enemies of the people and prevents amendments that will diminish their power from being introduced. If a Convention were held the delegates elected by the people of the respective states would have the power that Congress now has. The question is do you trust more, Congress or a delegation of representatives elected by the people?

The crime syndicate likes things the way they are. They control all three branches of government and they write the laws, interpret the laws and enforce the laws and ignore the Constitution when it gets in their way.

Because there has never been an Article V Convention it is not clear exactly how the delegates to the Convention would be selected. There are Constitutional Scholars that believe that the legislatures of the states would determine who and how many delegates they would have. There are others that believe that in order to comply with the 14th Amendment the Article V Convention would need a number of delegates equal members in Congress. They believe that each state would be entitled to 2 delegates to match their representation in the Senate plus one additional delegate for each Congressional District in their respective state.

The 14th Amendment requires that citizens in same class need to be treated equally under the law. Since members of Congress and delegates of an Article V Convention both have the right to propose amendments to the Constitution, they need to meet the same qualifications and must be elected in the same manner.

The Constitution does not provide the Supreme Court with the authority to Amendment the Constitution, but whenever the clowns in the gowns misinterpret the Constitution they can amend the Constitution by changing its meaning. The Court has become a perpetual Convention to Amendment the Constitution. Trusting 9 political hacks that wear black dresses that are selected by the President and confirmed by the Senate are agents of the same crime syndicate that prints the worthless Federal Reserve Notes.

Once 34 states states have applied for a Convention, Congress has no choice. They must call for the Convention or violate their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, Those that are opposed to calling for a Convention once the requisite number of 34 states have been reached and opposed to the Constitution.

Those opposing the Convention are either agents of the status quo or well intended individuals that have been deceived by the enemies of the Constitution.

The convening of a Convention to amend the Constitution would take the power away from Congress and give it to the people of the fifty states. Why is it risky to trust the people and not risky to trust Congress? If we were to transfer the power from Congress to the States to propose Amendments, what is the potential risk?

Views: 798

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

 Just what makes anyone think the criminals in congress will sit on their butts while the people exercise their rights? They're not standing up for the people now against a thief they call Mr.President when the entire world knows HE IS A CRIMINAL AND IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. Our coward congress has made America the laughing stock of even the most degenerate country. Just be ready my brothers. Pray and seek direction from God. hopefully we will be able to save at least part of Gods Country.

What steps need to be taken to call the Convention???

As soon as 34 states request a Convention, Congress is mandated by Article V to call for a Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. At this time all 50 states have at one time or another requested a convention. If you read the wording in Article V there are no time limits imposed. The Article only requires the states to request a convention, it does not require them to specify the subject that caused them to issue the call for the convention.

The are 435 Congressional Districts and according to the 14th Amendment individuals in the same class must be treated equally under the law. In other words the qualifications for a member of Congress and the qualifications for a delegate to an Article V Convention must be the same. Each state will have a number of delegates to the convention equal to the number of Congressional Districts in their respective states.

The delegates of each state will  vote on proposed amendments and if the majority of the delegates vote for a proposed amendment, that state's vote would be in the affirmative. In order for an amendment to submitted to the states two-thirds of the states would need to vote in favor of ratification.

If this is achieved the proposed amendment is sent on to the states for ratification. Since there are over 30 Red States the possibility of Progressive Amendment being ratified is highly unlikely. On the other-hand the ratification of an amendment to repeal the 16th and 17th amendment would possible if not likely.



Online Professor said:

As soon as 34 states request a Convention, Congress is mandated by Article V to call for a Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. At this time all 50 states have at one time or another requested a convention. If you read the wording in Article V there are no time limits imposed. The Article only requires the states to request a convention, it does not require them to specify the subject that caused them to issue the call for the convention.

Please forgive my skepticism,but it really worries me to "incite" the Government to open ANY Rights issue to any form of Government vote. Given how subversive this alleged president has been since he came to this Country,I can't shake the feeling that regardless how evident it may be that he can't legally or Constitutionally do something,he WILL do it,via "back-door legislation" or Executive Order.

   I really fear that,if we open the process to add Amendments,the Gun-Grabbers will use that process and their skills at manipulation of the people's intent to create Amendments to revoke the 1st, 2nd, and/or 22nd Amendments,and probably others.

   I have very little faith in the individual States to do the right thing,as the majority of them don't appear particularly willing to shake up the business as usual;some appear to be trying to get back to a more Constitutional mode of operation,THEN there's New York,California,and recently a couple of other States who have apparently lost their minds. Most of the States,my own included,I'd worry to give them a say in any decision other than whether to take a cut in pay or have their pay revoked.

   In short-I really don't trust our current Administration,or the individual segments thereof,to give more than brief passing thought to what's the best decision for the USA in the choices and decisions they make. Sorry if I'm being a little gloomy;in light of some recent news I've seen,I'm finding it hard to see the bright side.

Article V gives the people the right to propose amendments to the Constitution if Congress fails to represent the will of the people. If you don't trust the government, the only other option is to allow the people to propose amends via a Article V Convention.

We could also hope and pray that Congress will repent or we can start a bloody revolution. As for me I think that we should follow the plan that was recommended to us by the authors of the Constitution.

  I'm willing to take the high road;I just don't believe there's ANYTHING this Administration won't do to push their agenda forward,Constitutional or not. I really DON'T want to see bloodshed begin over this,so as you said,we should go with the plan the Founding Fathers offered up,and hope there's enough people,in Congress and individuals,to stop those who would subvert the Constitution's true intents. I don't see Congressional repentance being very likely,but if we can keep Congress truthful and legitimate,weed out some of the worst "offenders",we might be okay.

   Our alleged president has done enough,already,to file Criminal charges against him. If we're going into Constitutional issues,what about his failure to be eligible to run for President? He fails on at least two different points-his parentage and his Citizenship. Why is this not being considered? (My guess is what professional attorney wants to be the one who prosecutes the president? Almost certain death to the career.)

I do not believe a con con is wise at this moment in time in our country. There are. Too many ignorant people, too much misinformation, corruption through Soros, PACS, government agencies, and more. There would be real risk as anything can be brought up at a con con. What if some well funded group inserts real limitations on the first and second amendments, or inserts equal status for Islam in our courts? Sorry to say, if we the people are going to save ourselves, first we must pray for forgiveness that we have betrayed God. Then we must WORK at finding local candidates who are Constitutional Christians, whether the office is school board, sheriff, or legislator, or other. WORK is what we have not done. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. A con con is a way to fool ourselves that we can save ourselves without getting out of our chair. Don.t be fooled. In the Constitution classes I have been in, the guidance was AGAINSt a con con.

You say that there are too many ignorant people, but I they can be educated. The corrupt politicians that are taking their marching orders from the International Bankers are evil and can not be rehabilitated. Apparently you would rather trust the criminals than the victims of their tyranny. If you will take the time to study the issue you will come to realize that following the course of action written in Article V of the Constitution is the remedy our founders provided for us to reclaim our Constitutional Republic.

If you oppose an Article V Convention you are also opposed to the Constitution itself. If you say you want to preserve, protect the Constitution it is hypocritical to oppose the remedies provided for us by our founding fathers.

Either members of Congress or delegates to an Article V Convention have the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution. If the members of Congress can not be trusted, the founders wanted "We the People" to step in and propose the amendments needed promote freedom and preserve our Constitutional Republic.

The Convention would only have the power to suggest amendments for the states to consider. It is the states that need accept or reject the proposed amendments. You have a choice of putting your faith in the 535 Congressmen and Senators or 535 private citizens elected by the voters in their Congressional Districts. If the delegates propose to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and if three fourths of the states agree the Convention will have been  success. If the delegates propose that we repeal the Second Amendments, three fourths of the states would need to agree. Either way the Convention would help to preserve the unalienable rights of the people.

Search Youtube for the Act of 1871.  It's believed by many that the United States became a corporation at that time & the constitution doesn't really mean anything.  Therfore, nothing in the Constitution could prevent Obama from running for Prez.
 
James Stepp said:

  I'm willing to take the high road;I just don't believe there's ANYTHING this Administration won't do to push their agenda forward,Constitutional or not. I really DON'T want to see bloodshed begin over this,so as you said,we should go with the plan the Founding Fathers offered up,and hope there's enough people,in Congress and individuals,to stop those who would subvert the Constitution's true intents. I don't see Congressional repentance being very likely,but if we can keep Congress truthful and legitimate,weed out some of the worst "offenders",we might be okay.

   Our alleged president has done enough,already,to file Criminal charges against him. If we're going into Constitutional issues,what about his failure to be eligible to run for President? He fails on at least two different points-his parentage and his Citizenship. Why is this not being considered? (My guess is what professional attorney wants to be the one who prosecutes the president? Almost certain death to the career.)

NO, NO, NO.

Everyone is too stupid. We just need to follow God's Law as written in the Constitution. Anything can be altered in a concon. Anything. Kind of the same thing as remodeling your house, "oh, by the way, let's also do this, and that, and this, and that". Exactly the same. Dreaming that all of a sudden they are possess a biblical world view, and morality, and selflessness, and what else? This will all come to pass and our country will be better off. No way. Even the best of them don't know the constitution. Mike Lee doesn't know it and he is one of the best. Even he thinks majority rules on 2nd A issues. Even he doesn't understand the Constitution says exactly what it means..."shall NOT BE INFRINGED".

GET IT?

Jeanine, You said Everyone is too stupid. We just need to follow God's Law as written in the Constitution. The Article V has two provisions to propose amendments to the Constitution. Both the Congressional and the Convention methods were endorsed by the Founding Fathers.

The states would never had ratified the Constitution if they did not have the power by pass Congress and propose amendments to the Constitution. If Congress proposes a lousy amendment only 38 states would need to ratify it. If a Convention proposed a lousy amendment it too would need to be ratified by 38 states.

Is a Convention of the people more dangerous than a Congress that is working for the International Bankers?

 If the Constitution were being followed we wouldn't need any new amendments. Unless "We the People" enforce the Constitution our nation is doomed.

RSS

© 2017   Created by Keith Broaders.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service