In Article V of the Constitution of the United States the Framers provided us with a method to amend the Constitution.
The Constitution provides that:
“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 Convention in three fourths thereof,…”
Unfortunately, the political establishment has been in controlling the process since 1787 and they do not want to relinquish that power to the people. If the Constitution was strictly enforced, an Article V Convention would be unnecessary. Due to a liberal interpretation of this Constitutional authority, our government has become a crime syndicate. It is time for the people to tell their servant government what they can and cannot do. Allowing the three branches of government to police themselves is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
It is we the sovereign People who have the responsibility to decide what is and what is not constitutional. Under the Ruler's Law, the rulers make the laws and they are the judge, jury and executioners of the law. This consolidation of power will ultimately lead to tyranny. If the people are the masters and the government is our servant, we must take responsibility or surrender to the crime syndicate that has taken over.
Replies
While the Article V Convention was provided to us in the Constitution as a potential remedy to an abusive National government, the real focus of our attention should be on criminals in Congress that continually violate the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is not nearly as important as removing the men and women in Congress that violate the Constitution on a daily basis.
Most have failed to recognize that Article V convention, and all have failed to engage discussion upon constitutional intent.
Article V:
--"which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution"--
So it is no wonder Americans keep digging in the pile of obscure historical legal principles.
America has no educational materials which identify our first constitutional right. There is no in depth writing on constitutional intent.
No comment IS EVER present upon the idea of "Preparatory Amendment" as a way for the people to control an Article V convention.
The doctrine of free speech is half understood at best. No one knows its simply defined purpose or is prepared socially to use that for unity.
There is no comment on the logic that the gov under the corporate contract only fears one thing, Article V, and the proof is shown in the congressional failure to call s convention when 2/3 of the states had applied in 1911.
Congress would only risk such a thing if it were vital to the continuity of their fraud. In 1913 the fed reserve was created after the titanic was used to kill 40 of the weathiest Americans against America leaving the gold standard.
--"It is we the sovereign People who have the responsibility to decide what is and what is not constitutional"--
Before a people "decide", they must agree on which decision is best.
Free speech is abridged. Americans cannot even share facts effectively or determine them as a group.
Americans formally "decide" by voting. Our election system is corrupted and the is no accountability to fixing it.
A representative government needs fair candidate review by voters, that does not exist.
If Americans collectively assume a platform as SOVEREIGN citizens which seeks to secure our first right and all rights needed to use it properly,and ASSURE all amendments have constitutional intent, then we can decide what is needed.
The platform is uncompromising and only candidates which recognize and accept that Article V is our first right, and that the right to free speech must be unabridged within preparatory amendment as well as securing the vote and fair campaign finance; get out vote.
I would call it the principal party, or the "pissed off party" and conduct it with a write in campaign at election that was made uniform so registrars will have no problem determining voter intent.
I'm posting on a phone so review of posts is not really possible.
The fact Lincoln was assassinated indicates his influence alone would be enough to move the states toward Article V.
--"It is we the sovereign People who have the responsibility to decide what is and what is not constitutional"--
After 1871, a majority of the governmental structure was adamantly against Article V because that is the only authority adequate to abolish the 1871 corporate contract.
--"It is time for the people to tell their servant government what they can and cannot do. "---
Members of this forum and the other forums I post in are the ONLY way to get this info and strategy out to the people.
However, members like Pat Fields choose to promote personal sovereignty rather than answer a direct question about what our first right is, or to provide examples of the most prime constitutional right.
There is no precedent saying individual sovereigns have the authority to tell congress what to do. Unless of course there are many an they are unified.
If that is the case, the sovereignity of the individuals does not matter. The congress etc., only respects the unity of the citizens.
Unity upon strategy which gains limited authority had limited potential. Why not unify on that with the ultimate authority, if unity is what it takes?