Print

The “Convention of States” proponents, headed by Mark Meckler, constantly reassure the doubters and the skeptics (of which I am one) that their COS would be strictly “limited to proposing amendments related to the listed topics”.  In actuality, however, that is their usual “soothing syrup” spread over the gullible among their followers and the uneducated amongst the population, because any constitutional convention (and their COS IS a CON CON) could, and conceivably would, result in a RUNAWAY CONVENTION that could reverse or eliminate any number of our current constitution’s limitations on the power of the federal government (at least the way our Founders intended—not that the criminals and buffoons in Congress pay much attention to our constitution any more) and its interference in the lives of the American people.  Sad to say, but a new CON CON/COS could actually accomplish the SAME goals that many of its advocates claim to be fighting against.

As a word of caution, Mark Meckler’s group, Convention of States, held a “simulated  or mock Constitutional Convention” back in 2016 which didn’t get a lot of publicity.  I wonder why?  Could it have been because this “simulated COS/CON CON produced several amendments that would have MASSIVELY INCREASED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WOULD HAVE GREATLY EXPANDED ITS SPENDING POWER?   Hmmmmm? 

Much of the rest of this article will be taken from the published wisdom and written brilliance of my “mentor” on this subject, Joanna Martin, who writes under the name “Publius Huldah” (‘Publius’ from The Federalist Papers, and ‘Huldah’ from 2nd Kings and 2nd Chronicles in the Old Testament, who was a prophetess (very appropriate).   I’ll quote from and paraphrase her deep knowledge on this subject, but the original research and the cogent arguments are hers!  When the “master” speaks, the “audience” would do well to heed her words.  I certainly have.

HOW TO GET A NEW CONSTITUTION UNDER THE PRETEXT OF PROPOSING AMENDMENTS

Mark Meckler’s organization, “Convention of States” (COS), endlessly claims that an Article V CON CON is THE remedy our Founders gave us in order to “rein in” the profligate spending of the federal leviathan when it “violates its constitutional limitations”.  In our opinion their “assurances” are absurd as well as false!  To begin, their claims are “absurd” because our present constitution already limits the federal government to only a handful of powers (the ‘enumerated powers’, totaling 18, are listed in Article 1, Section 8 of our 1787 Constitution.)  Virtually everything else is reserved to the States or to the People).  The major problem for almost the past 200 years is that Congress, in its usual fiscal folly, has always IGNORED the constitutional limitations on spending.  Will a new “balanced budget” amendment FORCE these profligate fools to rein-in their out-of-control squandering of the American people’s money?  Are you “snickering and guffawing” with me?  You should be.

Michael Farris, one of the original co-founders of “The Convention of States”, along with Mark Meckler, is always quoted as saying:  “George Mason demanded that this provision (the inclusion of a CON CON to propose amendments) be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today.  He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.”  This contention by Farris regarding the “quote” from George Mason is “false” because MASON SAID NO SUCH THING!  Read the Federalist Papers yourselves, as Joanna Martin has done.

George Mason was one of the delegates to the 1787 Philadelphia convention, where that body decided to abandon their original instructions from their state legislatures to “fix” the Articles of Confederation, and instead they became a “runaway convention” and drafted an entirely NEW constitution.  Mason and the other Framers of our present constitution did agree that the purpose of future amendments would be to correct defects in the constitution they were drafting.  James Madison’s Journal of the Convention documents that on June 11, 1787, George Mason said:  “The Constitution now being formed ‘will certainly be defective’, as the Articles of Confederation have been found to be.  ‘Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way….It would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent….The opportunity for such an abuse, may be the fault of the Constitution (a defect) calling for amendment.”  Mason’s argument was that Congress might not agree to amendments needed to fix defects in the Constitution, therefore he didn’t want the Constitution then being drafted to require only Congress’ approval of amendments.  Hence his demand that an Article V CON CON be included as one way to propose and pass amendments.

It was common knowledge among the delegates in Philadelphia that George Mason, as well as Patrick Henry, despised the finished version of our constitution and DID want another convention called to get rid of it and draft a new one, right then.  On August 31, 1787, Mason declared:  “…that he would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands”, and if it weren’t changed, he wanted “to bring the whole subject before ANOTHER general Convention.”  (The Bill of Rights amendments, Numbers 1 through 10, a few years later, soothed the concerns of some of those original recalcitrant delegates).

George Mason strongly objected to James Madison’s original proposal  that ONLY Congress could propose amendments to the finished constitution.  He demanded that “the people” should also be able to propose amendments. Eventually Mr. Morris and Mr. Gerry (two other delegates) moved to add the “convention method” to Article V.  They, as well as other delegates, knew that because “the people” always have a right to meet together in a convention if they so agree—said right to include calls to “alter or abolish” any present form of government and set up a new one (per the Declaration of Independence), the “convention method” of proposing and voting on amendments needed to be added to our present constitution, and it was.  But some delegates were strongly against that, including Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, who were voted down.

Today, Meckler’s COS is only one of several groups pushing for a new CON CON.  Without much doubt the main goal of these groups is to get a NEW U.S. CONSTITUTION proposed and sent to the States for consideration (AND it is not beyond the realm of possibility that some of these cunning collectivists will write their new constitutions to basically bypass the states altogether).  New constitutions have ALREADY been written or are “in the works”, notably:

It should be apparent that it is the sinister and anti-American GLOBALISTS who are strongly behind this push for a new Article V CON CON. The COS organization and similar groups are “useful tools” to these internationalists/globalists in their centuries-long battle to obliterate our 1787 Constitution.   Those who deny this are either willfully blind or deliberately stupid or, possibly, very cunning!

CAN STATE LEGISLATURES ACTUALLY CONTROL AN ARTICLE V CON CON (OR A COS) AS THE CONVENTION OF STATES ORGANIZATION CLAIMS?

Under our current constitution, the legislatures of the several states “apply” to Congress to call a CON CON when 34 states have sent in their applications to do so.  CONGRESS then “calls” for the convention, but the time between the ‘call’ and the actual convention is unspecified.  IT COULD TAKE YEARS, because without any doubt there will be large numbers of lawsuits to hear and rule on.  However, the important point to keep in mind is that pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, last clause, IT IS CONGRESS THAT MAKES THE LAWS (THE RULES) TO CARRY OUT ITS DELEGATED POWERS TO CALL FOR THE CONVENTION.  NOT THE STATE LEGISLATURES!    Do you really believe that Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, and the rest of the herd of leftist, progressive cretins who belong to The Klan of New Bolsheviks, along with their willing RINO accomplices, will actually hand over the planning for, and the final reins of, a new CON CON?  We would all behold Peter Pan and Tinker Bell flying over the capital before that happened!

And THAT is why James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, four different U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and many other legal minds have warned the American people AGAINST ANOTHER CON CON.  According to Joanna Martin, “Constitutional litigators and law professors William Olson and Herbert Titus recently warned that the COS’s ‘false assurances’ are ‘reckless in the extreme’.”  They certainly are!

These notable Americans over the ages have spoken out AGAINST calling for a new CON CON.  Near the end of Federalist #85, Hamilton wrote that he “dreads” the consequences of another CON CON because the enemies of the Constitution want to get rid of it.  SCOTUS Justice Arthur Goldberg said in his 1986 editorial in the Miami Herald that “it cannot be denied that the Philadelphia convention of 1787 broke every restraint intended to limit its power and agenda,” and “any attempt at limiting the agenda would almost certainly be unenforceable.” 

SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren Burger said in his June, 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly:  “…there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention….After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda….A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn….”  Even SCOTUS Antonin Scalia, who did support a CON CON back in the 1970’s, changed his mind, and on April 17, 2014 said: “I certainly would not want a constitutional convention.  I mean whoa.  Who knows what would come out of that?” 

Next time we’ll conclude by discussing some reasonable and constitutional ALTERNATIVES to a CON CON and a better way to rein in our profligate federal monster.  One of those alternatives is called NULLIFICATION!

Hits: 499
Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive