The Article V Convention - Click Here
In Article V of the Constitution for the United States the Framers of the Constitution provided us with a remedy to apply when the it became necessary to amend the Constitution. The Constitution provides two methods to amend the Constitution.
When two-thirds of the representative in both the House and the Senate vote in favor of a proposed Amendment, it is then sent on to the states for ratification. If the proposed amendment receives the approval of three-fourth of the states it become lawfully ratified.
The second method of amending the constitution is initiated by the request from two-thirds of the states. Once the minimum numbers of states have requested a Convention to propose amendments, Congress is required to call for the Convention. If the delegates of the Convention vote in favor on a proposed amendment it is then sent on to the states for their consideration. If the legislatures of three-fourths of the states vote for ratification, the proposed amendment becomes law.
The political establishment has been in control of the amendment process since 1787 and they do not want to relinquish this power to the people. If the Constitution had been strictly enforced, an Article V Convention would be unnecessary. Due the a liberal interpretation of their Constitutional authority our government has become a crime syndicate and it is necessary for the people to tell their servant government what they can and can not do. Allowing the three branches of government to use their own best judgement to determine what they can do is like trusting a fox to guard the hen house.
If "We the People" are sovereign, it is our responsibility to decide what is and what is not constitutional. Under 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
The Constitution is a rulebook that was written to govern the government. Unfortunately, those that define the powers of the government have a vested interest in expanding the power and influence over the people. Would you trust the coaching staff of the Oakland Raiders to serve as unbiased referees in the Super Bowl?
Amending the Constitution is like re-writing the rulebook. Congress and the President have been allowed to interpret the Constitution in order to do virtually everything that they deem is necessary and proper. The Supreme Court has stood idly by and allowed the legislative and executive branches to completely ignore the limited and defined powers enumerated in Article I Section 8.
the CON CON is a bad idea. Those who want a Con Con are the deceivers. Once a con con is in place the participants are not restricted to what they can do. The constitution we have is good the way it is. We just have to elect people who adhere to it and enforce it. Like another writer, I will not support a con con or an organization that wants one. Today's world contains no Jefferson's, Madison's, Franklin's or anything like them.
The Remedy is Hidden in Plain Sight Podcast by Keith Broaders
One more amendment -or ten more - the method utilized to obtain them notwithstanding, will not enforce the Constitution any better than it is now being enforced. So why use a method that has never been used in our nation's history & proven, to simply submit another amendment? I fail to see the logic in doing so.
So why use a method that has never been used in our nation's history & proven, to simply submit another amendment? Because it is mandated in the Constitution. How can it be proven it has never been used? We don't know how effective this method of proposing amendments will be, but Congress has proven how effective they are . George Washington, James Madison and the the authors of the Constitution provided us with this tool as alternative method to propose amendments and apparently you think the current members of Congress are smarter than the men that wrote our Constitution. Frankly, I don't understand how by opposing the Convention and violating the Constitution is logical. Can you explain your position so it makes any sense. Why would you trust the criminals in Congress to fix the problems that they have created?
Wayne Leach said:
Has Congress, or the rest of our elected and appointed "oath takers" obeyed the previous amendments and laws? No! So, what sense is there in promoting an untried Convention in an attempt to demand they obey the People's instructions now? Re-writing the rules does nothing positive, if the officials disobey current ones! We need to enforce and protect our current Constitution, not change it fruitlessly.
That, my friend, is up to the People. As you, and other intelligent people, have said previously, the Constitution cannot protect itself!
Online Professor said:
"apparently you think the current members of Congress are smarter than the men that wrote our Constitution." That is not true! I know they are there, and are criminally abusing the People's government for their own evil intentions! But, the ONLY way to correct this, is through the proper education of the ignorant masses who elect these tyrants. It cannot be done through any constitutional changes via a Convention composed of the same ignorant people who selected the tyrants. Nor can it be done by "changing the rule book", for we already have a rule book called the Constitution, which they do not follow, either! People need to inform their local and state officials to abide by their oaths, and educate their sheriffs about their authority to arrest the criminals and domestic enemies who do not.
A group of People in Maine have united, created a Remonstrance, served it on the Legislature & governor, and made a degree of progress by meeting with the governor to address specific issues and violations. To date, no response from the Legislature, but actions are in motion to address this matter. The group is identifying a few legislators individually, and garnered some support there. This is action, and can be effective at the state and local levels, but would have no effect at the national IMO. However, when the State legislatures realize that they will be held accountable, and required through the People's demands to assert their 10th Amendment powers, they can have an effect at the national level. After all, the States are still sovereign, as far as I can determine to date.
Online Professor said:
Amen. They are criminals and should be treated accordingly. A con con in today's world of moral relativism and no Madison's, Jefferson's or Franklin's would be national suicide.
Wayne Leach said:
Wow! I just found your site. Great commentary OP.
I came to the same general conclusions myself. Then I worked through what has to happen to make a States' Convention work and wrote them out in this article: A Limited Convention to Amend the US Constitution: Fourth draft (warning: dry, lengthy reading).
By working through the finer details I came to a couple of important conclusions. There are a couple of problem with the States' Convention. If Congress recognizes that the States are coming together to force Congress to call a Convention, Congress will act to protect their own interests. To save face, they will call a Convention before the States force them to. When they call the Convention, they will set it up so that the proposed amendment being produced is a panacea that does not truely deny them power.
Another problem is the problem of who the government really is. That would be the political duopoly of the Democratic and Repulican parties. In effect, the parties are the government. Effective reform will take power from the Federal government, which means power will be taken from the parties. The parties are entrenched in the State governments, so getting the State governments to act against the Federal government is really asking the duopoly to turn on itself. Do you see that happening? I don't.
The reform that needs to happen, as you are so-o-o-o close to realizing, is that the Supreme Court needs to be split in two, with a Federal Court to adjudicate Federal law, and a Constitutional Court to adjudicate the Constitution. Your analagy of a football coach is absolutely correct. (I believe I used the same analogy somewhere once myself.) The adjudication of the Constitution must be done by an objective body, not a body appointed by the people who are the subject of the rules. Where you use the analogy of a football referee, I would use the analogy of a city that wrote a good set of criminal laws, but put the criminals in charge of enforcing the law and appointing the judges; the citizens only get to choose who their criminals will be. All the criminals would try to make the case that they are the nice "Robin Hood" type of criminals, and the other criminals are the "Al Capone" types.
South Korea has a working example of an effective split court system. It took them a while to get it working correctly, but once they did their Constitutional Court started striking down unconstitutional laws left and right.
If a con-con is to be held, today's Madison's, Jefferson's or Franklin's must step forward to start and run it. An organized group must back them. Its too bad that there is no such group around today. Other groups are trying to start a States' Convention. I recently started documenting their follies at hellcatrepublican.com.
Keep up the good work. I'll stay tuned in.
(By the way. What's going on here in Oregon with so many Sheriffs writing letters of protest? I would expect to see a bunch of Texas Sheriffs doing something like that. But in ultra progressive Oregon?)