As you know, yesterday the North Carolina House voted against the COS application for an Article V convention. We won by 6 votes.
But a few hours later, COS and the treacherous Republican leadership got the members to vote to “reconsider” their vote against SJR 36. So they brought SJR 36 back to life and sent it to a House Committee. There it will wait until COS and Republican leadership twist enough arms and pressure more House Republicans to vote for it.
[Below I use “left” to describe those who want big government; and “right” to describe those who want small government.]
It has always been the Big Money on the Left which wants an Article V convention so they can get rid of the Constitution we have and impose a new one. Some 50+ years ago, the Left came up with the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America. Under this proposed Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. It sets up a totalitarian dictatorship under which (among other things) we will be disarmed. It is ratified by a national referendum. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm
It has always been the Right which resisted the periodic pushes for an Article V convention. The Right understands that delegates to an Art. V convention have plenipotentiary powers and can exercise [once again] that “self-evident right” recognized in the 2nd para of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off the Constitution we have and set up a new one which creates a new government.
So the Left changed clothes and changed tactics. Now, they are pretending to be “Right” and they are marketing the con to Republicans. Our State Legislators are, for the most part, jaw-droppingly ignorant of our two Founding Documents. And too many Republican Legislators believe whatever the fake “Right” con-con lobby tells them.
Much confusion has been caused by the Left’s claim that those supporting the con-con are “Libertarian”, “right-wing”, “ultra-conservative”. We know that the Koch Brothers on the fake “Right”, among others, are spending vast sums of money to buy Republican politicians to get them to support an Article V convention. see, e.g., http://www.prwatch.org/news/2017/03/13229/koch-brothers-bankroll-constitutional-convention
Many Republican Legislators, who don’t understand our Founding Principles and Founding Documents, go by the labels which others assign. And since they are told that an Article V convention is the “conservative” position, they go along with it.
So Republican State Legislators who have been bought and paid for, or who go along with their Leadership, are the ones today who are doing the work of the Left by passing applications for an Article V convention. Most of them have no idea of the dangers. In some States (e.g.,Texas, North Carolina), the Republican leadership prohibits their members from hearing voices in opposition at Committee meetings. SJR 36 passed the North Carolina Senate with no public notice of the Committee hearing. Only former US Senator and COS operative Tom Coburn was given advance notice so he was able to attend and speak in support of SJR 36. But those of us on the genuine Right got no advance notice and our voices were not heard at that Senate Committee meeting.
At the hearing on June 28 before the North Carolina House Judiciary Committee IV, the sponsors of SJR 36 were given all the time they wanted to speak for SJR 36; but our Friend, Wynne Coleman, was only allowed one (1) minutes to speak in opposition. One Legislator who opposed was also given only one (1) minute. And that was it for the opposition at this public hearing.
I suggest that the reason the bought and paid for State Republican Legislators prohibit voices in opposition from being heard is that they know that when Legislators are given the TRUTH, they generally oppose an Article V convention.
So We are in imminent peril of losing our Constitution. It seems that what the Fake “Right” now wants is to move us into the North American Union (NAU). Under the NAU, Canada, the United States, and Mexico basically merge, and a Parliament is set up over them. The borders between the 3 countries are to be effectively erased. I have read the Task Force Report on the NAU sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. The globalists (George W. Bush, the Cruzes, etc.) need a new Constitution for the United States which transforms us from a sovereign nation to a member state of the NAU. How do they get a new Constitution? At an Article V convention. How do they get an Article V convention? By lying to the American People and to State Legislators, and by preventing voices in opposition from being heard.
See one page attachment on the NAU.
I suggest we better make defeating an Article V convention a primary focus of our lives.
Please get with your State Legislators and educate them. Warn those in your spheres of influence. We must get States to rescind their existing applications for an Article V convention. This past legislative session, 3 States (Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada) rescinded their outstanding applications for an Article V convention! But that took lots of work by many people.
If you want to know what America will look like once the Parliament for the NAU takes control of immigration, look at Europe. And pray that you aren’t disarmed under the new Constitution.
Fight this evil.
Have you ever watched an interview about the Convention Of States? Did you notice that if, someone calls it a Constitution Convention the Convention of States person ALWAYS insist its NOT? Do you think the Convention of States people know that if, you where told it REALLY was a Constitution Convention it would worry you? Would you trust the Convention of States people if, it turned out to REALLY be a Constitution Convention? Well, lets see what the Black’s Law Dictionary (“most widely used law dictionary used in the U.S.”) said it is: “Constitution convention, A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution. Art. V of the U.S. Const. provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states.” – source http://www.icontact-archive.com/Xij92lifAFOxVVofzxvF2ga8V5TB2Rlg?w=4.
The Constitution of the United States
* * * * * * * * * *
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.
As anyone can read there are no rules, regulations, guide lines, etc. on how to run a
“Convention of States” Constitution Convention. NO GUARANTEES. Anything can happen. Do any one of you really want to take a chance of losing the Constitution as it now stands? The possible lost of the Bill of Rights? Again, there are NO GUARANTEES as to what we will get if, a “Convention of States” Constitution Convention is convened.
The problem is not the Constitution. The Government that ignores the Constitution is the problem. Question is how do the People make the government follow the Constitution? It certainly is not the naive idea of writing new amendments to the Constitution thinking the Government will not ignore them as they do the Constitution and Bill of Rights now. – FVB III
A Look at the Folly of a Constitutional Convention
Click here to read: Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments! By Publius Huldah
“It is idiotic to assert that you can rein in a federal government which ignores the Constitution by amending the Constitution! – Pubilus Huldah.
Click here to read: Article V Convention: How “Individuals of Insidious Views” Are Stealing Our Constitution by Publius Huldah.
Click here to read: The Convention of the State Scam By Publius Huldah.
Click here to read: Article V by Publius Huldah.
Click here to read: Constitution Crafted in Secret. What Would a Similar Rule Produce at a Modern-Day Con-Con?
The Solution Is the Constitution, Not Article V
— Representative Fortney Hillman “Pete” Stark (D-Calif.), July 24, 2010
Back in the tumultuous days of ObamaCare town hall meetings in the summer of 2010, a constitutionally astute attendee at a Hayward, California, town hall asked her congressman, Pete Stark, a very pointed question: “If this [ObamaCare] legislation is constitutional, what limitations are there on the federal government’s ability to tell us how to run our private lives?”
After a long pause, the congressman haltingly answered, “I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life.”
His questioner interrupted, saying, “The Constitution specifically enumerates certain powers to the federal government and leaves all other authority to the states or the people…. So my question is, how can this law be constitutional? But more importantly than that, if they can do this, what can’t they?”
Click here to read the article.
You cannot “fix” federal usurpations of undelegated powers by amending the Constitution to say the federal government cannot do what the Constitution never gave it the power to do in the first place.
The push for a convention is a monstrous trick – a convention will enable the big government elitists to “re-write” our Constitution. – Publius Huldah
Liberty First Weekly Digest- Article V – The Untold Story by KrisAnne Hall http://tarheelteaparty.org/?p=21502
The Truth is that Congress has all the power to organize and set up the convention Congress “calls” under Article V.
BUT! Once the convention convenes and the Delegates seated, they are invested with that inherent sovereign right of a people to alter, abolish, or throw off their Form of government. Declaration of Independence, 2nd para.
The Constitution of 1787 is our Form of Government.
Delegates to a convention can throw it off. And propose a new constitution with a new mode of ratification.
Do you trust the Delegates?
Oh! You don’t know who they will be, do you?
Click here to read: Conventions Create Bigger Government.
Those pushing for an Article V convention assure you that Delegates to a convention can be controlled by State laws. But that is not true. Delegates to such a convention are the Sovereign Representatives of The People and have the inherent sovereign power to throw off our Form of government and institute a new Form of government (Declaration of Independence, 2nd para).
Our Form of Government is our Constitution of 1787 – it is our 2nd Constitution.
Our 1st Constitution was the Articles of Confederation.
How did we get from our 1st Constitution to our 2nd Constitution?
There was a convention to propose amendments to our 1st Constitution.
The result of that convention was a new Constitution with a new method of ratification. Whereas all 13 of the States had to approve amendments to our 1st Constitution; Article VII of the 2nd Constitution provided that it would be ratified by only 9 States.
PEOPLE! You better open your eyes. Or you will wake up one day and find that a 3rd Constitution has been imposed – and you will not like it.
This short paper shows why Delegates to an Article V convention can not be controlled by State Laws:
There is a safe way to smack down the federal government: LEARN and ENFORCE the Constitution of 1787 we already have! We have been ignoring it for 100 years: THAT is the problem.
Click here to read: Con-Con Common Sense.
Click here to read: Propaganda and the conspiracy against our Constitution.
Click here to read: Straight Talk About An Article V Convention.
Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention click here to read article.
Click here to read: Dangers of a Constitutional Convention.
Click here to read: Congressional report on Article V.
Click here to read: Is a convention to alter the constitution a good idea.
Justice Scalia’s Warning of a Constitutional Convention
The New American – In a recent e-mail from former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to Oklahoma state legislators encouraging them to pass the Convention of States application for a “limited convention,” Coburn used a supportive quote attributed to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (shown). The quote, as it appeared in the e-mail, reads:
If the only way to clarify the law, if the only way to remove us from utter bondage to the Congress, is to take what I think to be a minimal risk on this limited convention, then let’s take it.
Reading this, one might believe that this portrays a recent view of the late justice, especially since Coburn’s citation says “Justice.” However, this is misleading.
Although no date was provided with the quote, it comes from remarks delivered by Scalia at a forum hosted by the American Enterprise Institute on May 23, 1979 — seven years before President Ronald Reagan nominated Scalia to the Supreme Court. The AEI forum was entitled, “A Constitutional Convention: How Well Would It Work?” and was moderated by former ABC News chief John Charles Daly.
Click here to read more.
Reasons an Article V Convention Would Not Give Conservatives What They Want
InsiderOnline – The main problem with the country’s constitutional set-up, says Trent England, is not the words of the Constitution but a lack of fidelity to what those words mean. Amending the Constitution will just give liberals different words to ignore. England is the Executive Vice President of the Freedom Foundation, Washington State’s free-market think tank. Talking with the Daily Caller’s Ginny Thomas, England outlines some other reasons conservatives should be wary of an Article V constitutional convention.
Click here to read article and watch video.
Click here to read: Republicans and Democrats Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution
Click here to read: Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920) – U.S. Supreme Court Case.
Do the Communist/Socialist’s wish to rewrite the U.S. Constitution?
1963 Communist Goal #11: Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow.)
1963 Communist Goal #29: Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution
A “runaway” convention does not scare Lessig; it is precisely what motivates him. Individuals such as Lessig, Levinson, Penrose, and Stevens seek to do away with the “outdated” Constitution of 1787 and replace it with an entirely new constitution bearing little similarity to the current one. With each application petitioning Congress to call a constitutional convention, the country moves closer to enabling the Left to completely rewrite the Constitution.
Click here to read article.
Click here to read: ROB NATELSON PERVERTS THE NECESSARY & PROPER CLAUSE AND THINKS IN CIRCLES.
Article V: Reality vs. Myth
Click here to watch videos on why you should not want a constitutional convention.
Click here to watch four videos warning Against a Constitutional Convention.
Click here to read: Republicans and Democrats Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution.
FRUSTRATION INTENSIFIED by Michael Gaddy
There are several among us who continue to be frustrated at the belief/attempts by many, though well-intentioned, that there is a magic potion that can be applied to our tyrannical government that will suddenly transform said government into a benevolent organization intent only on protecting the Natural Rights of the individual and who will operate only with the “consent of the governed.” We have witnessed several decades of those who suddenly realize the ship of state is dreadfully off course and immediately adopt a do-something-now attitude. Little do they realize that the bucket of liquid they grab in a desperate attempt to douse the fires of despotism may in fact be gasoline.
Of course, in many cases, these are the same folks who long ago bought into the lesser-of-two-evils paradigm when it came to voting folks into positions of power over their rights and liberty. The belief that those politicians who are rewarded for violating their oath to our Constitution and Bill of Rights with repeated reelection will somehow embrace and honor new amendments to the documents they have repeatedly ignored must be rooted in some fairy-tale dust standard.
To believe those in power who have lined their pockets and those of their supporters with countless taxpayer and fiat dollars will suddenly adhere to a new set of restrictive amendments is analogous to believing a new set of rules and regulations, by a new warden, will stop drugs, violence, rape and gang affiliation down at the local maximum security prison.
Article V of our Constitution provides for a convention of states (COS) to propose new amendments to our Constitution which would then be submitted to the states for ratification. What, in proposing and supporting such a convention could frustrate those of us who claim adherence to the principles of our Bill of Rights you ask? The great questions in most of our minds are these: Who will the delegates be to such a convention? Will it be those who already sit in positions of power who have routinely ignored their sacred oath to “uphold and defend”? Will it come from the ignorant electorate who has routinely voted those who ignore the limits of the Constitution back into office? From where else could it originate but from those two elements?
When it comes to voting for ratification of any proposed amendments in the states, what then is to be said of the ignorance and/or incapacity of that same electorate? Is there somewhere unseen for decades an electorate knowledgeable of history and the failures of governments to adhere to their intended purpose? I find no evidence of such a group of citizens. Is our current electorate incurious about history? Are they narrow-minded and unintelligent about political events and circumstances? Are they more interested in being entertained than being educated? On any given weekend, do more people who vote attend or watch a sporting event on TV or read a book on the history of the founding era of our country?
Read below some devastating facts about our electorate taken from the book “National Security and Double Government” by Michael J. Glennon.
“A 2009 federal study estimated that thirty-two million American adults, about one in seven, are unable to read anything more challenging than a children’s picture book and are unable to understand the side effects of medication listed on a pill bottle. The Council on Foreign Relations reported that the United States has “slipped ten spots in both high school and college graduation rates over the past three decades.” One poll found that nearly 25 percent of Americans do not know that the United States declared its independence from Great Britain. A 2011 Newsweek survey disclosed that 80 percent did not know who was president during World War I; 40 percent did not know who the United States fought in World War II; 29 percent could not identify the current vice president of the United States; 70 percent did not know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land; 65 percent did not know what happened at the constitutional convention; 88 percent could not identify any of the writers of the Federalist Papers; 27 percent did not know that the President is in charge of the executive branch; 61 percent did not know the length of a Senate term; 81 percent could not name one power conferred on the federal government by the Constitution; 59 percent could not name the Speaker of the House; and 63 percent did not know how many Justices are on the Supreme Court. Far more Americans can name the Three Stooges than any member of the Supreme Court. Other polls have found that 71 percent of Americans believe that Iran already has nuclear weapons and that 33 percent believed in 2007 that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/ 11 attacks. In 2006, at the height of U.S. military involvement in the region, 88 percent of American 18 – to 24-year-olds could not find Afghanistan on a map of Asia, and 63 percent could not find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map of the Middle East. Three -quarters could not find Iran or Israel, and 70 percent could not find North Korea. In 1998— after nearly three decades of often heated debate about the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and arguments over related issues such as the proposed Strategic Defense Initiative— two-thirds of Americans mistakenly believed that a missile defense system was already in place. The “over-vote” ballots of several thousand voters— greater in number than the margin of difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore— were rejected in Florida in the 2000 presidential election because voters did not understand that they could vote for only one candidate.”
There it is. Listed above are the pool of people from which delegates to a Convention of States would be determined and also the pool of people who would be involved in the ratification process. Putting lipstick on this pig will accomplish nothing.
Is it possible now to understand the frustration of many of us who realize that while the idea of proposing new amendments to a Constitution that is routinely ignored by most elected officials at all levels seems like a quick-fix to so many, the chances of any meaningful changes are remote in the extreme?
Would the energy now being displayed in the effort for a COS or Article V Convention not be better employed in an effort to educate the electorate? There is an old quote that I feel is relevant to this debate when it comes to an uneducated, highly entertained electorate accomplishing anything that would fortify our individual rights and eliminate the corruption in our government: “You can’t make chicken salad out of chicken crap”
WHAT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WILL NEVER ACCOMPLISH by Michael Gaddy
“…experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes …” ~Thomas Jefferson, December, 1778
On New Year’s Eve, I was so fortunate as to be included in an email exchange in which the merits, or lack of same, of an Article V Convention were discussed over a period of several hours. There were several people included on this thread, all of whom I had never met in person although I have read extensively on their actions and positions concerning our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
After asking the original source of the email for a more detailed description of his thoughts on the subject and his promise that would be forthcoming after the holidays, I received an email from a self-described “constitutional scholar” and a retired law professor. Trying to dispel my experience which in the past has revealed those two terms to be consistently mutually exclusive, I was determined to be objective and courteous in my response. This was made somewhat more difficult when the “constitutional scholar” proceeded to address all in the exchange as obvious constitutional neophytes.
I am obliged to say also in the email exchange was a lady who has done a yeoman’s job in spreading the word of our founding era, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, Liberty and Sovereignty. While she did not describe herself as a “constitutional scholar” I hope that she will allow me to do so.
While many embrace the idea of an Article V Convention, I have harbored several reservations concerning the efficacy of such an act. I personally feel far too many people are looking for a “quick fix” for years of unconstitutional acts by the people they continue to elect to public office. The desire for a “magic bean” with immediate results to counter years of neglect and apathy by the masses is certainly appealing while taking the time to educate themselves and others is seen as too daunting and time consuming.
My first apprehension concerning an Article V Convention concerns those who have supported and promoted the convention using books and their appeal as a “conservative’ radio host. I speak specifically of Mark Levin. Why, you might ask, do I oppose the man referred to by many as the “Great One?”
Mark Levin is one of the most prominent Neoconservatives (Neocon) in our country today. Many do not understand what constitutes a so-called Neocon. My definition of a Neocon I am sure will anger many who support them without question. I believe a Neocon can best be described as a person who is at their core a Mussolini Fascist, wrapped in several layers of progressive liberalism and topped with a hard candy coating of Republican Party hyperbole and propaganda.
Levin claims as his heroes those who have throughout history fought the principles of Jeffersonian, states’ rights, federalism. He has never met an unconstitutional war he will not support. One of his heroes is Alexander Hamilton who at the 1787 Constitutional Convention proposed a king (permanent president) who would appoint all state governors so all power would rest in the hands of the central government. While this was overwhelmingly rejected by the convention, Hamilton fought for a US Bank, which would become the Federal Reserve and was the originator of “implied powers” beliefs buttressed by those who championed his belief in an omnipotent central government such as John Marshall, Joseph Story and eventually Abraham Lincoln. This is why Thomas Jefferson viewed Hamilton—and Marshall—as mortal threats to Liberty and State Sovereignty.
How Levin is able to claim his belief in constitutional government and his worship of Abraham Lincoln is beyond understanding. The words of Professor Thomas DiLorenzo detail Lincoln’s subversion of our Constitution and Bill of Rights:
“Having declared all of his political opponents to be traitors, Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political critics and opponents without due process; shredded the First Amendment by shutting down hundreds of opposition newspapers and censoring the telegraphs; deported his main Democratic Party critic, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio in a bold-faced attack on the separation of powers; confiscated privately-owned firearms in the border states; violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution by waging total war on his own country; rigged Northern elections; intimidated federal judges with soldiers so that they could not issue writs of Habeas Corpus, further destroying the separation of powers; enforced the slavery of military conscription (and executed deserters on a daily basis); and worse.”
When one of the chief advocates for new amendments garnered through an Article V Convention supports what is basically National Socialism and has a huge following among the great unwashed, what are the chances those who stand for the Jeffersonian principles of limited, states’ rights, representative Republic have a chance?
I wrote all of the above in order to clarify my position on an Article V Convention of the States. I am certainly not opposed to any such convention. To do so would be unconstitutional on its face. What I do question is the fact such a convention would lead to any significant changes in the tyrannical government we face today.
To create any amendments to the constitution which would help to return this country to the original intent of the founders would require attendees to that convention who to quote Jefferson have “knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries…” Where would be found a majority of convention attendees who would possess such knowledge? Does anyone believe such could be found among those currently serving in the legislatures of the existing states? What about members of the voting electorate?
Do the overwhelming majority of legislators not belong to one or the other of the two major political parties in our country? Exactly when has either of those political parties actually supported the intent of our founders and our Bill of Rights? Is the same not true of the electorate in this country? Is anyone so naïve as to believe either the legislators or the electorate would abandon support of their party to support limited government and states’ rights? Exactly when has that happened in our lifetimes?
Supporting a political party and its agenda holds the promise of power and wealth, while support of our Constitution and Bill of Rights provides neither. Jefferson died with considerable indebtedness. How many prominent politicians, in both parties today are in fact millionaires? I promise you those who are did not get that way by voting constitutionally.
Click here to read: Q&A on an Article V Convention that the Bob and Cathy Marshall. Bob Marshall is a Delagate (meaning a State Representative) in the Virginia Legislature.
Click here to view the The Eagle Forum.
Fifteen states have rescinded their resolutions calling for a Con Con:
Florida (1988) — amended by S0010 (2010)
North Dakota (2001)
South Carolina (2004)
Wyoming — HEJR0003 (2009)
Oklahoma — SJR 11 (2009)
Missouri — SCR 10 (2009) did not pass
South Dakota — HB 1135 (2010)
New Hampshire — HCR28 (2010)
Tennessee — HJR0030 (2010)
Chief Justice Burger on the Constitutional Convention Click here to read his letter to Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly.
Click here to read: Nullification vs. Constitutional Convention: How to Save Our Republic.
Perhaps the most critical consideration that must be made by well-intentioned Americans anxious to do something to change the current course and to restore this country to its constitutional foundations is the indisputable threat to liberty posed by an Article V con-con as proposed by Mark Levin in his new book.
Despite the crushing weight of evidence produced by The John Birch Society, Eagle Forum, and other constitutionalist organizations, Levin and like-minded con-con supporters insist that the constitutional convention held in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 did not exceed its mandate. In fact, based on the undeniable success of the constitutional convention of 1787, those calling for a new constitutional convention claim that a new con-con could accomplish just as much good as the first convention and be kept from becoming a “runaway convention” that could result in a new constitution, one that doesn’t resemble the current one.
Furthermore, the con-con claque claims that the historical record of the convention of 1787 proves that it was not a “runaway convention” and that a modern-day convention could be carried out without exceeding a very limited purpose. Unfortunately, this account of those seminal events is not accurate. – From article. Click here to read: Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity Calling for Con-Con written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D..
Click here to read: An Article V Convention Cannot Stop Federal Tyranny – But Here’s the Real Solution.
What did our Framers really say we must do when the federal government usurps power?
They never said, “When the federal government ignores the Constitution, amend the Constitution”.
They never said, “File a lawsuit and let federal judges decide.”
Instead, they advised two manly remedies. We’ll look at one of them – nullification – in this paper. 1
First, let’s look at the Constitution we have.
- A federation of sovereign States united under a national government ONLY for those limited purposes itemized in the Constitution;
- With all other powers reserved by the States or the People.
We listed every power we delegated to the federal government: Most of the powers delegated over the Country at large are listed at Article I, §8, clauses 1-16.
All our Constitution authorizes the federal government to do over the Country at large falls into four categories:
- Military defense, international commerce & relations;
- Immigration & naturalization;
- Domestically, create a uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
- With some of the amendments, secure certain civil rights.
That’s basically it! All other powers are reserved by the States or the People. Depending on how you count, Congress only has 18-21 powers over the Country at Large. 2
It is only with respect to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution that the federal government has lawful authority.
- If it’s on the list, Congress may make laws about it.
- But if it’s NOT on the list, Congress usurps power & acts unlawfully when it interferes.
Is “education” on the list of delegated powers? Raising children? Health Care? Environmental regulation? Is most of what they do on the list? Since these are not delegated powers listed in our Constitution, the federal government usurps power and acts unlawfully when it meddles.
So then, what do we do when the federal government usurps powers not on the list?Don’t Submit to Unconstitutional Laws – Nullify Them! 3
Our Framers said the federal government is our “creature” and must obey our Will as enshrined in our Constitution. And when it doesn’t, we must defend the Constitution by invoking our natural right of self-defense:
Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist No. 28 (last 5 paras): [I’m condensing]
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted … [by] … State governments [which] will … afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority…” [emphasis mine]
Hamilton says in Federalist No. 33 (5th para):
“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” [emphasis mine]
Thomas Jefferson said in his draft of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, 8th Resolution:
“…where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact … to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them…” [emphasis mine]
James Madison commented on this in his Notes on Nullification (1834):
“… the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression…” [emphasis mine]
Note that Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison said nullification is a natural right – it is NOT a “constitutional right”. Rights don’t come from the Constitution – they come from God. 4
HERE is Madison’s “Report of 1799-1800 on the Virginia Resolutions”. He said under his discussion of the 3rd Resolution [I’m condensing]:
- The States, in their sovereign capacity, are the parties to the constitutional compact; and are thus the final authority on whether the federal government has violated the Constitution. There can be no tribunal above the authority of the States to decide whether the compact made by them has been violated by the federal government. (p 192)
- That if, when the federal government usurps power, the States don’t stop the usurpation, and thereby preserve the Constitution; there would be no relief from usurped power. This would subvert the Rights of the People as well as betray the fundamental principle of our Founding. (p195)
- That the Judicial Branch is as likely to usurp as are the other two Branches. Thus, the Sovereign States have as much right to judge the usurpations of the Judicial Branch as they do the Legislative and Executive Branches. (p196)
- That all 3 Branches of the federal government obtain their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the authority of the States. And if the Judicial Branch connives with other Branches in usurping powers, our Constitution will be destroyed. (p196)
- So the Judicial Branch does not have final say as to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact. Otherwise, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of the judicial branch with the other branches in usurping powers, would subvert the Constitution forever. (p196)
In Federalist No. 46, Madison says, respecting unconstitutional acts of the federal government:
- the People can refuse to cooperate with federal officers [7th para];
- State officials can oppose the feds [7th para];
- State Legislatures can invent legislative devices to impede & obstruct the federal government [7th para];
- States can cooperate in concerted plans of resistance [8th para];
- States can easily defeat the federal government’s schemes of usurpation [10th para]; and as the last resort,
- States must defend themselves from the federal government – that’s why the People are armed.
So Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison tell us: When the federal government asks or directs States to do things which aren’t on the list, the proper response is, “No!”
We need today that same manly opposition to tyranny. And we are starting to see some: The Tenth Amendment Center says over 200 bills have been filed this year in State Legislatures to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government. E.g.:
- To allow terminally ill people access to experimental drugs & medical treatments despite FDA rules – drugs & medical treatments are not on the list! And the 10th Amendment didn’t stop them from usurping powers in this area.
- Deny resources and assistance to the National Security Agency – spying on us is not on the list! And the 4th Amendment didn’t stop them from spying on us!
- Nullify federal bans on growing hemp & marijuana. Agriculture and drugs are not on the list! And the 10th Amendment didn’t stop them from usurping powers in this area.
An Indiana Legislator filed a bill to nullify all federal EPA Regulations – environmental protection is not on the list! And the 10th Amendment didn’t stop them from usurping power over the environment.
Disarming the American People: If Congress by law, or the President by executive order, or the BATF by rule, or the supreme Court by opinion, or the federal government by UN Treaty, orders The People to turn in our arms, We must refuse to comply. The Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to disarm us. Gun control is not on the list! And the 2nd Amendment didn’t stop them from regulating ammunition, firearms, and firearms dealers.
Accordingly, States should pass laws directing their firearms and ammo dealers to ignore all federal dictates which pretend to restrict arms, firearms, ammo, and sales of same. The Law should also provide that the State Attorney General will defend any Citizen of the State from unlawful acts committed against him by agents of the federal government attempting to enforce unconstitutional federal dictates within the borders of the State.
Prayer in the Public Schools: When, in 1962, the US supreme Court began its war against Christianity by banning prayers in the public schools, State legislatures should have passed laws directing their public schools to ignore the unconstitutional opinion of the supreme Court. “Religion”, “prayers”, and “public schools” are not on the list of delegated powers. And the 1st Amendment didn’t stop them from “prohibiting the free exercise of religion”.
Rosa Parks & Martin Luther King showed us spine 50 years ago when they nullified the State & local Jim Crow laws by refusing to obey those unconstitutional laws.
Recently in Connecticut, Citizens refused to obey an unconstitutional State law which pretends to require them to register their firearms. Art. I, §15, CT Constitution says:
“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”
If you are a “Citizen”, you have the right to bear arms – that’s all you need in Connecticut. So the Connecticut Statute making it a felony to possess guns which are not registered is unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, § 15 of the State Constitution.
And The People – as the creators of the State government – are the ones to ultimately decide!
All nullification requires is a spine. And Rosa Parks & MLK showed us what spine looks like: You say, “No more!”
The southern States were agricultural. They bought manufactured goods from England. England bought southern cotton. Infant industries in the North East were producing some of the same manufactured goods as England; but because they were more expensive than the imports, they couldn’t compete.
So in 1828, Congress imposed a high tariff on the imports. The Southern States called this the “tariff of abominations”, because it made the English goods too expensive to buy; and when the Southern States stopped buying English goods, England stopped buying Southern cotton. This devastated the Southern economy.
Note that Congress has specific authority to impose tariffs on imports: Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. So the Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional.
The nullification crisis of 1832 was brought on because S. Carolina wanted to “nullify” the Tariff Act of 1828 – a constitutional law! South Carolina developed a bizarre theory that
- A State has a “constitutional right” to nullify any federal law; and
- The nullification is presumed valid unless ¾ of the States say it isn’t valid.
In James Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1834), he discussed and debunked S. Carolina’s theory. He said:
- The federal government has delegated authority to impose tariffs;
- The Constitution requires that tariffs be uniform throughout the United States;
- States can’t nullify tariffs authorized by the Constitution;
- ¼ of the States don’t have the right to dictate to ¾ of the States on matters within the powers delegated to the federal government; and
- Nullification is not a constitutional right.
Near the end of his Notes, Madison quoted Thomas Jefferson’s famous statement:
“…but where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact …to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits …” [emphasis mine]
Madison then says:
“Thus the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression.” [emphasis mine]
Do you see? Madison’s points are:
- States may not properly nullify constitutional acts of the federal government; and
- When an act of the federal government is unconstitutional, nullification is a NATURAL RIGHT – not a “constitutional right”. 5
For the Sake of your Country and Posterity, you must also renounce cowardice and appeasement as the response to evil.
If you fail us, hell on Earth is just around the corner.
1 The other Remedy is to elect faithful representatives. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 20, 1788 at , James Madison said our Constitution depends on the people having the “virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom” to office. In Federalist No. 44 [12th para from end], he says when Congress usurps powers, and the executive and judiciary departments go along with it,
“…a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers…” [emphasis mine]
But we keep electing ignorant phonies who know nothing about our Constitution. Why do we do this?
2 THIS Chart lists the enumerated powers over the Country at Large and illustrates how Principles in our Declaration of Independence were implemented in our Constitution.
3 Stop quibbling over terminology. As a People, we have lost the ability to think conceptually. When some don’t see the word, “nullification”, in a writing, they insist the writer didn’t support it. But the concept is refusal to submit to unconstitutional laws. You can call it “non-violent civil disobedience”, “that original right of self-defense”, “resistance”, “refusal to obey”, “impeding & obstructing”, “nullification”, “interposition”, or something else. I use “nullification” because the term has a distinctive meaning and was used by our beloved Thomas Jefferson. You may call broccoli “broccoli”, a “green vegetable”, a “cruciferous vegetable”, a “super food”, or “little trees”. But “broccoli” is the most precise and distinctive term. Do you see?
4 So when Michael Farris, and others who tell us a convention is the only way out, disparage nullification as an “extra-constitutional doctrine”, the proper response is: Nullification is NOT a “constitutional right or remedy” – it is that NATURAL RIGHT of self-defense which pre-dates and pre-exists the Constitution. Farris has repudiated our Founding Principles that Rights come from the Creator God, and that the purpose of government is to secure the Rights GOD gave us (Declaration of Independence, 2nd para). In Farris’ brave new world, “rights” come from the Constitution – where they are subject to the will of human governments. See, e.g., his so-called “parental rights” amendment HERE. “Child raising” is not now on the list of delegated powers – but §3 of Farris’ “parental rights” amendment would delegate power over children to the federal government. Read it.
5 Rights don’t come from the Constitution! They come from GOD! PH
1787 Constitutional Convention: Why the Secrecy Rule?
The New American – When the proceedings got underway in May 1787, that legally binding constitutional requirement was completely ignored. From the moment Edmund Randolph stood and proposed what was known as the “Virginia Plan,” the Constitutional Convention of 1787 became a “runaway convention.”
Furthermore, there was yet another provision of the Articles of Confederation requiring unanimity in any amendment or change made to that document. Again, in Philadelphia, that provision was not only disregarded, but was completely replaced, eventually, by Article VII of the Constitution created at the convention.
Click here to read article.
Click here to read: Defeating Federal Absolutism: The Convention of States and Article V Constitutional Convention.
Click here to visit the Convention of States, a project of Citizens for Self-Governance website.
The idea that the Supreme Court is the final answer, is incorrect as….
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
“The above statement alone clarifies that the people and the people alone are the last word – NOT the Supreme Court. And is the ULTIMATE statement on Nullification.” — Fremont V Brown III
Nullification The Rightful Remedy
KrisAnne Hall spoke at the Rightful Remedy Conference in Charlotte on March 28, 2015 about the role of states in our federal republic and why they already have the power to stand firm against the federal juggernaut.
The following is from: Nullification, How to resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.. I think you may find the book a very interesting read.
The supremacy clause says the Constitution and laws in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. ………………… That’s precisely the issue: a nullifying state holds that the law in question is unconstitutional and not “in pursuance thereof”.
In Federalist #40 James Madison noted that ” the general powers are limited: and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in enjoyment of the sovereign and independent jurisdiction.”
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to people.
Nullification is the refusal to enforce UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws, not simply laws the states do not like.
Alexander Hamilton contended in Federalist #78 that ” there is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void..
“that a law repugnant to the constitution is void” -Marbury v. Madison (1803)
The Supreme Court itself, after all, although usually pointed to as the monopolistic and infallible judge of the constitutionality of the federal governments actions, is itself a branch of the federal government. So in a dispute between the states and the federal government, the resolution is to come from…the federal government? Jefferson refused to accept that answer. Under that arrangement, the states would inexorably be eclipsed by the federal government. (Fremont: the states formed the country and are sovereign when Federal enumerated duties are not involved.)
Jefferson disagreed with Marshall’s reasoning in Marbury v. Madison, (1803): You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. – http://en.wikipedia.org/
Thomas Woods speaks on Nullification at Nullify Now Los Angeles
There are MANY states nullifying unconstitutional Federal laws.
Click here to read: Kansas Governor Signs Bill Nullifying Federal Gun Control.
Click here to read: Alaska lawmakers push back on ‘federal overreach’.
Click here to read: States stepping up nullifying Federal Government.
Click here to read: NULLIFYING UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL ACTS By Larry Pratt.
Click here to read: States Aim to Nullify Obama Gun Control.
Click here to read: The States Nullify Unconstitutional Federal Laws, Even When Endorsed By Supreme Court: Public Opinion & Support Make It Easy To Resist Federal Tyranny.
Click here to read: The Rightful Remedy and Our Last Hope.
Click here to read: Thoughts on Nullification.
Click here to read: Nullification and A Few Good Men by Diane Rufino, June 22, 2013.
Sovereignty and Nullification
Click here to read: Cato Institute Declares States Are Not Sovereign By KrisAnne Hall
Click here to read: Thomas Jefferson: Nullification is a natural right
Click here to read: James Madison on Nullification
Click here to read: Justice Often Served By Jury Nullification.
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Dr. Dan – Any legislation, rule, regulation, or executive action implemented by any branch of the federal government that is contrary to, in violation of, or disallowed by The Constitution is, by its very essence, null and void. Our Constitution guarantees sovereignty to each citizen and to each of the sovereign states, past and future, that voluntarily agrees to be part of the federation created by that legal document. By design, the federal government is not a party to this legal contract. Its delegated powers are strictly limited by that contract, with the states retaining ultimate authority over the federal government protected by the Tenth Amendment.
That was both theory and reality to those who wrote our Constitution and to the delegates to the state ratifying conventions who agreed to join the constitutional republic, the federation of sovereign states that was created thereby.
All that remains today is an historical account of that theory. The rights “guaranteed” to the states and their citizens have been stolen by constitutional amendments (14, 16, and 17) and the Federal Reserve Bank which, by institutionalized blackmail, has forced the states into economic submission to the federal leviathan.
Click Here to read article.