Click on banner above to read some of his articles.

Article V of the US constitution is the only possible strategy to defend the constitution.

Only by knowing constitutional intent do the people become the masters of the congress and the courts.

The nation is so unconstitutional now that preparatory amendment to the constitution is needed to assure that all amendments have constitutional intent. There are 3 preparatory amendments that all citizens must demand delegate agree to propose and work to ratify.
1) End the abridging of free speech
2) Amendment that reforms campaign finance
3) Amendment that secures the voting methods

By use of Article V after 1) has had its effect, then 2) assures that election campaign will be fairer while 3) assures our voters are counted, we can defend the constititon.

articlevconvention.org

Is for discussion upon Article V.

Christopher A. Brown

Views: 44

Comment

You need to be a member of Constitution Club to add comments!

Join Constitution Club

Comment by Christopher A. Brown on November 14, 2012 at 8:08pm
Richard Richard Michael wrote:
"The Federal government has no inherent right to regulate campaigns"

Correct, and by amendment specifically designed, any abused authority can be constitutionally, further, cut off from historical manipulative means.
Comment by Richard Michael on November 12, 2012 at 9:59pm

Christopher Brown wrote:

"What I would propose takes monetary power from special interests in their campaigning."

The Federal government has no inherent right to regulate campaigns connected with State elections which are subject to State constitutions and law. In fact, State efforts to regulate campaigns (Vermont comes to mind) have been frustrated by interference from the Federal judiciary.

Making an unenumerated power legal by a Federal constitutional amendment gives power to all branches of the Federal government over a uniquely State function.

Campaign finance legislation continues to fail because of the Federal Supreme Court, most recently in the Citizens United case. The movement to eliminate the court's misguided granting of rights to corporations would handle the issue by making it clear that corporations, which are State-created franchises, have no rights recognized by the Constitution.

As long as 'all' corporations and State franchises are included in the amendment, it is worth supporting. Some of the current proposals make a distinction between for-profit (businesses) and not-for-profit (churches, unions, associations) corporations. That distinction, which can't be supported by any logical reasoning, would worsen the situation. It would just benefit the unions which generally get their funding directly from individuals.

Taking the lid off the pent up demand by the People of the several States to regulate campaign financing would then be allowed to take its natural course.

Comment by Christopher A. Brown on November 12, 2012 at 8:09pm
With amendment, the NDAA and a bunch of emergency orders along with GATT and NAFTA can be rescinded, corrected-made constitutional.

Richard Michael wrote:
"How we get that to be enforced is the real issue, though, isn't it?"

Correct. With free speech abridged we cannot share and understand the issues that are so fundamental that IF they were known people would unify in lawful and peaceful revolution.

Knowing that one fact opens the door to revision of the first amendment which justifies mass communication to public access. We can be the "rightful masters of the congress and the courts" (Lincoln 1859) if we can understand and agree.

The conversion of the usenet to .com and some other very major injustices have led to serious abridging of free speech in critical public arenas.

Richard Michael wrote:
"I would not want to give it more power by defining any powers connected with elections,"

Hmmmm, seems the comment misrepresents what is proposed. What I would propose takes monetary power from special interests in their campaigning.

Richard Michael wrote:
"The Federal Elections Commission, the Voting Rights Act, Help America Vote Act, etc. -- all unconstitutional. "

Agreed.

My point is this from Article V related to what Lincoln said.

____shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,____

Using free speech we become the masters.


Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Comment by Peter Landy on November 12, 2012 at 11:09am

Thank you for your informative post Richard.  As you well suggested there are simple but effective solution to fix the constitutional crisis deliberately sabotaged by the Federal government.  Also as you plainly stated how are we going to implement the fix against an out of control Federal government?  They're arming to the teeth with hollow point bullets 30,000 drones, Patriot Act, NDAA bragging in preparation for civil war while very clearly people want a peaceful resolution.  So it seems to me we need to more people awakened to help join and increase the peaceful momentum to take back our country without playing into the hands of Federal provocateurs. 

Comment by Richard Michael on November 12, 2012 at 10:57am

Those who claim to want to fix the Constitution never cease to amaze.

Christopher, I can agree with only one of your three suggestions.

The First Amendment is clear and not subject to interpretation -- 'Congress shall make no law ...' No means no, except where the Federal government is concerned. How we get that to be enforced is the real issue, though, isn't it?

Your second and third suggestions both have to do with elections. Knowing how the Federal government abuses its powers, I would not want to give it more power by defining any powers connected with elections, except of course for where it has territorial jurisdiction, like the District of Columbia and other territories.

The Federal Elections Commission, the Voting Rights Act, Help America Vote Act, etc. -- all unconstitutional. Each State constitution has a section on voting and suffrage. The People of each state should be able to create their own rules and the Federal government should have no say in the rules adopted by the States.

I could agree with an expanded Bill of Rights that included the exclusion of the Federal government from all activity connected with elections and voting.

As to the NDAA, Peter, amending the Constitution to deal with the all the violations should be done in a simplified amendment that addresses all three branches of government with criminal and civil penalties.

And Raymond, the electoral college was set up to avoid 'democracy.'

But that's what this site is about -- to learn.

Comment by Peter Landy on November 11, 2012 at 12:51am

Good post, but what about NDAA?  This abomination of the Constitution not only voids Bill Of Rights but returns us back to the status of a plantation slave.

Regards, P.L.

© 2019   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service