11/7/19

Article 5 of the US Constitution: What “Convention of States Project” (COS) isn’t telling you

By: Publius Huldah

  1. Article 5 provides two ways to amend our Constitution: Congress (1) proposes amendments and sends them to the States for ratification (this was done with our existing 27 Amendments); or (2) calls a convention for proposing amendments if two-thirds of the State Legislatures apply for it. We’ve never had a convention under Article V – they are dangerous! 1
  2. But today, various well-funded factions are lobbying State Legislators to ask Congress to call an Article V convention. One faction, the “Convention of States Project” (COS), claims to be for limited government and is marketing the convention to appeal to conservatives. COS claims (falsely) that our Framers told us to amend the Constitution when the federal government violates the Constitution.2
  3. COS’s claim is absurd – it’s like saying that since people violate the Ten Commandments, God should amend the Ten Commandments.
  4. COS’s claim is false. Not only did our Framers never say what COS claims,
  • Our Constitution already limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to a small handful of enumerated powers (they are listed on this one-page chart).3  Furthermore, it’s impossible to rein in the federal government with amendments because when the feds usurp powers not delegated, they are ignoring the existing constitutional limitations on their powers.
  • All of the proposed amendments produced by COS and their sympathizers markedly INCREASE the powers of the federal government by delegating powers the federal government has already usurped; by granting new powers to the federal government; by transferring power from Representatives elected by the People to the Deep State; or by stripping States of their existing sovereign powers.4 See:

Mark Levin’s “liberty” amendments: legalizing tyranny,

COS Project’s “simulated convention” dog and pony show and what they did there,

The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster,

Parental Rights Amendment: Selling You and Your Kids Out to Big Government

Wolf PAC’s Amendment for “fair and free elections”, and

Term Limits: A Palliative not a Cure 5

  1. So what’s the real agenda of those (primarily George Soros and the Kochs) who are financing the push for a convention? A convention provides the opportunity to replace our existing Constitution with a new constitution which moves us into a completely new system of government, such as the North American Union (NAU).  Under the NAU, Canada, the United States, and Mexico are economically and politically integrated and a Parliament and combined militarized police force are set up over them.6

The phrase within Article V, “a Convention for proposing Amendments”, doesn’t restrict the Delegates to the Convention to merely proposing Amendments.  Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that a People have the “self-evident Right” to throw off their government and set up a new government.7  We’ve already invoked that Right twice:  In 1776 we invoked it to throw off the British Monarchy; and in 1787, James Madison invoked it to throw off our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation (AOC), and set up a new Constitution [the one we now have] which created a new government.

This is what happened:

There were defects in the AOC, so on Feb. 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention to be held in Philadelphia

“for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”

But the Delegates ignored their instructions from Congress, and similar instructions from their States 8 and wrote a new Constitution which created a new government.  Furthermore, the new Constitution had its own new mode of ratification:  Whereas amendments to the AOC had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States; 9 the new Constitution provided at Article VII thereof, that it would be ratified when only 9 States approved it.

And in Federalist No. 40 (15th para), James Madison, who was a Delegate to the Federal “amendments” Convention of 1787, invoked that same Right as justification for the Delegates’ ignoring their instructions and writing a new Constitution which created a new government.10

  1. If we have a convention today, the Delegates will have that same power to get rid of our second Constitution and impose a third Constitution. New Constitutions are already prepared or in the works!  One of them, the Constitution for the Newstates of America, is ratified by a national referendum (See Art. XII, §1). The States don’t vote on it – they are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.
  2. So why was the convention method added to Article V? The Anti-federalists wanted it added because they wanted another convention so they could get rid of the Constitution just drafted.  James Madison and Alexander Hamilton understood that a people have the right to meet in convention and draft a new constitution whether the convention method was in Article V or not.  So this is why Madison and Hamilton went along with adding the convention method to Article V; and this is why, as early as April 1788, they and our future first US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay started warning against another convention.
  3. Using the pretext of merely getting amendments, the Globalists want a convention so they can complete their coup against us and get a new Constitution which moves us into the New World Order.
  4. States should rescind the applications they have already submitted to Congress.

Endnotes:

1 That is why James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, four US Supreme Court Justices, and other jurists & scholars warn against it!  See their words HERE.

2 See Michael Farris’s quote HERE. None of our Framers said such a silly thing as Farris claims!  Our Framers actually said the purpose of Amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution, and they all knew that the real purpose of a convention is to get another constitution.

3 IGNORANCE is our problem.  Americans don’t know what our Constitution says.  Can you recite by heart the enumerated powers granted to Congress over the Country at Large?

4 Mark Levin’s amendment to “grant the States authority to check Congress” [p. 169 of “The Liberty Amendments”] provides that three-fifths of the state legislatures may vote to override a federal statute and certain Executive Branch regulations provided that the States do so within a certain time period.  When that time period has expired, the States are forever prohibited from exercising the override.

Levin’s amendment would strip the States of their long-recognized individual natural right – much written about by our Framers – to NULLIFY all acts of any Branch of the federal government which violate our Constitution. See Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense and What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power?

5 The federal term limits amendment would transfer power from US Senators and Representatives (elected by the People) to the Deep State (a massive body of nameless, faceless, and unelected bureaucrats who would become the PERMANENT AND TOTALLY UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNING BODY).

6 For the Love of God, your Country and your posterity, READ the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force Report on the NAU. This is what the Establishment Elite wants and can get with a convention!

7 The Declaration of Independence is part of the “Organic Law” (the Fundamental Law) of our Land.

8 This Delegate Flyer summarizes the instructions the States gave the Delegates.

9 See ART. 13 of the Articles of Confederation.

10 In Federalist No. 40 (15th para), James Madison says the Delegates knew that reform such as was set forth in the new Constitution was necessary for our peace and prosperity.  They knew that sometimes great and momentous changes in established governments are necessary – and a rigid adherence to the old government takes away the “transcendent and precious right” of a people to “abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness,” … “and it is therefore essential that such changes be instituted by some INFORMAL AND UNAUTHORIZED PROPOSITIONS, made by some patriotic and respectable citizen or number of citizens…”

09/4/19

Read the Commerce Clause in the Light Cast by the Other Parts of Our Constitution

By Publius Huldah

The parts of our federal Constitution are so interrelated that it is impossible to understand a single clause therein without considering all of the other provisions of our Constitution.

Article I, §8, clause 3, US Constitution, states:

“The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

The original intent of the power to regulate commerce “among the several States” is proved here:  Does the “interstate commerce” clause authorize Congress to force us to buy health insurance?  That paper proves that the primary purpose of the power is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – goods & commodities – merchandise – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling.

But recently, some have asserted that since “foreign Nations”, “the several States”, and “the Indian Tribes” are grouped together in the same clause, it necessarily follows that Congress’ power to “regulate commerce” with each of them is identical.  And since Congress has broad powers over foreign commerce, they conclude that Congress has those same broad powers over interstate commerce, and may lawfully, for example, ban the movement of physical goods [such as firearms] across state lines.

So let’s look at that clause in the Light cast by the rest of the Constitution.

Continue reading

07/18/19

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due

By: T F Stern | Self-Educated American

We were watching a movie the other day on one of the regular channels where you get to see a few minutes of the movie followed by several minutes of commercials.  The efforts of the moviemakers got lost somewhere between combining car, house and life insurance, more comfortable jockey shorts and deciding which brand of whiskey best matched the outdoor sportsman in us.

At a certain point, you consider yourself ‘invested’ in watching the movie until its conclusion while attempting to ignore interruptions.  Maybe this is how cable companies have figured how to get folks to pay for adding movie channels; just interrupt the programming on the regular channels enough and people will pay not to see commercials.

The movie was ending as the credits began to roll across the screen, a chance to give individuals who’d put the movie together credit.  Did I say roll across the screen; I meant sprint past at nearly the speed of light.  Evelyn Woods Speed Reading Course had not prepared me for this particular exercise.  To make it more challenging, they split the screen so that the credits for the previously viewed movie, now in a tiny box in the corner of the screen, could play out while introducing the next feature.

Continue reading

07/4/19

The Betsy Ross Flag: 5 Things You Didn’t Know About This American Icon

Ammo.com

5 Things You Didn't Know About the Betsy Ross FlagSecond only to Old Glory itself, the Betsy Ross Flag is the American icon. Its clean design is similar to our current flag, with 13 stripes and only 13 stars in a circle (representing the equal status of what were then the 13 united individual sovereign nations). This simplicity is perhaps the reason for its popularity among American Patriots and Constitutionalists, as it hearkens back to an earlier time when America was still a place of freedom and resistance to tyranny.

But while this flag is the oldest attested flag for the American nation, many people don’t know its history. Who was Betsy Ross? And how did this iconic design become one of the strongest symbols of freedom?

1. Betsy Ross was shunned by Quakers and her family.

A Quaker like many in Pennsylvania, Betsy Ross was born Elizabeth Griscom. Once her education in public school ended, her father had her apprenticed to an upholsterer. It was at this job that she met her future husband, John Ross – an Episcopal and brother of George Ross, who signed the Declaration of Independence. Since the Quaker community frowned upon inter-denominational marriage, the two eloped when Betsy was 21 years old.

After the elopement, Betsy was estranged from her family and expelled from her Quaker congregation. Her husband died a few years later during the Revolution. (Some have speculated that Betsy was the “beautiful young widow” who caught Carl von Donop’s eye after the Battle of Iron Works Hill.) It was after John Ross’ death that Betsy rejoined the Quakers – this time the Free Quakers, fighters who supported the war effort.

Continue reading

07/4/19

Independence Day: The Forgotten History of America’s 4th of July and What It Commemorates

Ammo.com

Every American knows what Independence Day is. Alongside Christmas and Thanksgiving, it’s one of the few holidays that hasn’t fallen prey to having to be celebrated on the closest Monday, rather than the actual day it falls on. However, less known is the history of the Fourth of July as a holiday. How did the celebrations emerge and what is the history of this, America’s birthday?

Few know that the 13 Colonies actually legally separated from the mother country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, on July 2nd, not July 4th. This was the day that the Continental Congress voted to approve a resolution of independence. After voting in favor of independence, Congress then turned toward the actual drafting of the resolution, which we know today as the Declaration of Independence. It was on July 4th that Congress approved the resolution.

For his part, John Adams believed that July 2nd would be the day to be celebrated throughout the ages in the United States. While his prediction was two days off, his prediction of how the day would be celebrated is pretty close to the mark:

“It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.”

Continue reading

06/25/19

Dwindling Right to Freedom of Movement

By: T F Stern | Self-Educated American

Hello America, it’s a little over a week until we celebrate our Independence Day and consider all the rights and privileges associated with citizenship.  What did our founders have in mind for this Great Experiment in self-governance and, have we kept that vision?

Some folks call me a dreamer for holding on to my belief that America is the land of promise, that our constitution was divinely inspired and if applied properly would allow us all to achieve the highest level of personal freedom available on the planet; but according to the news media that term should be reserved for young illegal aliens who claim they are immune from immigration laws or that they shouldn’t be deported simply because their parents violated our immigration laws.

Maybe our sense of history needs to be ignited, like the fuse of a 4th of July bottle rocket sent into the night sky, a chance to remind us of battles long ago fought for… for what?  I know they fought for something; must have been for lower prices on Dr. Pepper so we could enjoy grilled hamburgers with a stack of crunchy potato chips.  They fought so we could send a women’s soccer team to represent our country in the World Cup Games; well, most of the athletes on our team acknowledge and stand when our National Anthem is played…

Those battles were fought to define us as a nation that honors and respects inalienable rights of individuals, generally defined as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  These rights were later specifically defined as the Bill of Rights in our Constitution; however, among the individual rights so defined, the individual’s right to freedom of movement within these United States wasn’t listed because our founders didn’t think individual freedom of movement would ever be in question.

Continue reading

10/30/18

What the Framers really said about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution

By Publius Huldah

One of the silliest of the many unsupported claims made by those lobbying for an Article V convention is that our Framers said that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution.1

It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that their claim makes as much sense as saying that since people violate the Ten Commandments, God should amend the Ten Commandments.2

And since none of our Framers said such a silly thing, the convention lobby can’t produce a quote where it was said.

Even so, some have believed it and repeated it to others.  Americans!  We must demand that people prove their claims before we believe what they tell us.

I will show you original source documents, and you can see for yourself what our Framers really said about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution.

Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787

James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted.  He kept a daily Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is.

Madison’s Journal shows what our Framers said at the convention about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution:

  • Elbridge Gerry said on June 5, 1787: the “novelty & difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision.”
  • George Mason said on June 11, 1787: 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 than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent…The opportunity for such an abuse, may be the fault of the Constitution [i.e., a defect] calling for amendmt.” [boldface mine] 3
  • Alexander Hamilton said on Sep. 10, 1787: amendments remedy defects in the Constitution. 4

The Federalist Papers

In Federalist No. 43 at 8, Madison said the purpose of amendments to the Constitution is to repair “discovered faults” and “amendment of errors”; and “amendment of errors” and “useful alterations” would be suggested by experience.

In Federalist No. 85 (13th para), Hamilton said useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not…the mass of its powers” 5

Throughout Federalist No. 49, Madison warned against a convention for proposing amendments, and showed that a convention is neither proper nor effective to restrain government when it encroaches.

Madison’s letter of August 28, 1830 to Edward Everett (p. 383-403)

Madison says:

“Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Govt. & rights of the States agst. usurpations & abuses on the part of the U.S…” (p. 398)

So he is talking about provisions – defects – in the Constitution which permit the federal government to abuse the States.  He goes on to say:

“…the final resort within the purview of the Constn. lies in an amendment of the Constn…” 6

So he’s saying that when a defect in the Constitution exposes the States to abuses by the federal government, the remedy is to amend the Constitution.

To fully grasp Madison’s point, we must look at his letter in its historical context of the Tariff Act of 1828:  The southern states bought manufactured goods from England.  England bought southern cotton.  But infant industries in the Northeast couldn’t compete with the English imports. So during 1828, Congress passed a Tariff Act which imposed such high tariffs on English imports that the southern states could no longer buy them.  England stopped buying southern cotton. This devastated the southern economy. So South Carolina wanted to nullify the Tariff Act (the “Tariff of Abominations”); and developed a theory that a State had a “constitutional right” to nullify any federal law, and the nullification would be presumed valid, unless three-fourths of the States said it wasn’t valid.

Madison opposed South Carolina’s theory because the Tariff Act was constitutional – it was authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 1, US Constitution.  States can’t nullify a constitutional law! 7

But while the Tariff Act was constitutional, it was abusive:  Article I, §8, cl. 1 was being used to benefit infant industries in the Northeast at the expense of the southern states. 8

So what’s the remedy “within the purview of the Constitution” for the Tariff Act of 1828?  Madison doesn’t spell it out – but obviously Art. I, §8, cl. 1 could be amended to say that Congress may impose tariffs only to raise revenue to carry out the enumerated powers; and may not impose tariffs in order to benefit domestic industries, or to benefit one section of the Country at the expense of other sections. 9

Washington’s Farewell Address

In his Address, Washington warns that we must require people in the federal government to confine themselves within their constitutional powers; and we must not permit one department [branch] of the federal government to encroach on the powers of the other departments (p. 15-19).  He then says,

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” (p.19)

So Washington is talking about what the people may come to see as defects in the Constitution:

  • If we want one branch of the federal government to have a power which the Constitution delegates to another branch, we should amend the Constitution to redistribute that power.10
  • If we want the federal government to have a power the Constitution doesn’t grant, we should amend the Constitution to delegate the additional power. No matter how desirable it is for the federal government to have the additional power, we must not permit it to exercise the power by usurpation.11

And this is what Alexander Hamilton, who along with James Madison assisted Washington in drafting his Farewell Address, 12 had previously said in Federalist No. 78:  The representatives of the people [Congress] may not violate the Constitution even if a majority of their constituents want them to:

“…Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act…”  (5th para from the end)

Our Constitution isn’t defective, it’s ignored!

Our Constitution is a 5,000 year miracle.  Our problem is everyone ignores it. The solution is to dust it off, read it, learn it, and enforce it.  Downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers.

Demand Proof of what people say before you believe them.

If Americans would follow the example of the Bereans (Acts 17:11) and demand proof of the claims the convention lobby makes, they would spot the false claims and preserve our blessed Constitution.  Judges & Juries require trial lawyers to prove their claims. Demand the same from lobbyists for a convention!

Endnotes:

1 Michael Farris claimed [but couldn’t link to a quote because Mason didn’t say it]:

“George Mason demanded that this provision [the convention method of proposing 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.”

2 Amendments can’t “rein in” the fed. gov’t when it “violate[s] its constitutional limitations” because when it does so, it is ignoring the existing limitations on its powers. Hello?

3 Mason’s concern was that the new fed. gov’t wouldn’t agree to amendments needed to correct defects in the new Constitution:

  • Under the Articles of Confederation (our 1st Constitution), amendments had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the States (see ART. 13). So Art. V of the new Constitution dispensed with the requirement that Congress approve amendments.
  • Who should be able to propose amendments? Madison wanted Congress to propose all amendments, either on their own initiative or at the request of 2/3 of the States.  But Mason said the States should be able to propose amendments without asking Congress because Congress might become oppressive and not permit the States to get the necessary amendments.

So the convention method was added. And it provided a way for States to propose amendments.  But it also provided a convenient opportunity to get a new Constitution, since the delegates would have that transcendent right, recognized in our Declaration of Independence, to throw off one government and write a new constitution which creates a new government.

George Mason hated the new Constitution.  He said on Aug. 31, 1787 that he “would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands”; and if it wasn’t changed to suit his views, he wanted another convention. Everybody knew that to get a new Constitution, you need a convention.

Madison and the other Framers went along with adding the convention method because they knew the people had the right to meet in convention and draft a new Constitution whether or not the convention method was added to Art. V [e.g., Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville  p. 299 at 2.]; and they couldn’t stop People in the future from doing what they had just done.  So Madison, Hamilton & John Jay promptly started warning of the dangers of another convention: see the Brilliant Men handout.

4 Here’s an illustration of what States soon saw as a defect in our Constitution:  Art. III, §2, cl. 1 delegated to federal courts the power to hear cases “between a State and Citizens of another State”. But when a citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia, the States were outraged!  See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). So the 11th Amendment was ratified to take away from federal courts the power to hear such cases.

5 The Constitution drafted at the federal convention of 1787 delegates only a tiny handful of powers to the fed. gov’t.  See this chart.

6 Madison continues, “… according to a process applicable by the States.”  Madison always said that when States want amendments, they should ask their congressional delegation to propose them.  E.g., Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville (p. 299 at 2.).

7 See Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1835) HERE  (p. 573-607).

8 The Tariff Act of 1828 violated our Founding Principle (2nd para of the Declaration of Independence) that the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us. God never gave us the right to be free of competition in business.

9 In the very next paragraph, Madison says that when there is a pattern of usurpations and abuses, we must step outside of the Constitution and resort to the original right of self-defense: resistance, i.e., nullification or revolution (p. 398).

10 E.g., Art. I, §8, cl. 11 delegates to Congress the power to declare war.  But if we want the President to have that power, we should amend the Constitution to delegate that power to the President.  We must not permit the President to exercise that power by usurpation!

11 If we wanted the fed. gov’t to exercise power over labor unions, wages & hours, safety standards, food & drugs, manufacturing standards, agriculture, energy, housing, transportation, education, medical care, the environment, etc., etc., etc., we should have amended the Constitution to delegate those powers to the fed. gov’t.  But we ignored Washington’s advice, and permitted the fed. gov’t to exercise those powers by usurpation.

12 The Introduction to the Farewell Address (p. 3) says that George Washington composed it with the assistance of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.

07/4/18

Happy Independence Day: Our Forgotten Founding

By: Lloyd Marcus

The American left loved it when Obama proclaimed early in his presidency that we are no longer a Christian nation. https://bit.ly/2KwbI1x

While actively seducing illegals to invade our country https://bit.ly/2KuKQ51, Obama strove to deport and seal our borders from the God of the Bible. Obama was the most biblically hostile president in U.S. History. https://bit.ly/2plTsy0

America was founded upon a rock-solid foundation of Christianity. Five historic crucial battles were won by divine intervention; God’s hand on America. https://bit.ly/2KhiP1R

“The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded.” – James Madison

“The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The Bible is the rock on which this Republic rests.”Andrew Jackson

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here.” – Patrick Henry

“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.” – Daniel Webster

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…. the general principles of Christianity.”John Adams

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People.” – John Adams

“America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture. That if they would see America free and pure they will make their own spirits free and pure by this baptism of the Holy Spirit” – Woodrow Wilson

It was extremely disturbing witnessing Obama’s 8 years of diminishing the dignity of what it means to be an American; undermining our legacy of courage, individualism and self-reliance. Obama encouraged Americans to get on welfare. https://bit.ly/2tPrptm

Outrageously, Obama used Spanish-speaking soap operas to encourage illegals to apply for food stamps, claiming it was the moral thing to do for their families. https://bit.ly/1ixsqOm

He demeaned risk-taking small business owners by telling them, “You didn’t build that.” https://fxn.ws/2biS2xL Under Obama, fraudulent disability claims and Americans receiving unemployment checks skyrocketed. https://bit.ly/2N8rYY1 Black unemployment went through the roof, sending blacks economically backwards. https://bit.ly/2KwZjNU

As a Christian nation, we love giving people a hand up and setting them free to fly on their own. That’s the America way. “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” While this proverb is not in the Bible, the principle is biblical.

The anti-Christian American left’s goal is to addict as many Americans as possible to total dependency on government – creating entitlement junkies willing to surrender total control of their lives to big brother. Obamacare actually dictated which Americans would live or die. https://bit.ly/2Kjp1q3 Obama admitted that under his healthcare, grandma would probably be given a painkiller rather than a pacemaker. https://bit.ly/2MweDaT

Everywhere you turn, you see America’s cultural decline in the family, morality, education and the arts. https://bit.ly/2ySviUp The American left promotes class envy, racial hate, victim mindsets, irresponsibility, laziness and hatred for achievers.

My heart wanted to scream from the rooftops, “We are better than this, WE ARE AMERICANS!” Instead, I wrote a song.

Hollywood film director Robert Kirk has produced a new stunningly moving music video using my original song titled, “We Are Americans.” https://youtu.be/FZ_P6bpMlYI

The release of the new “We Are Americans” music video is July 4th: https://youtu.be/FZ_P6bpMlYI

My fellow Americans, we have fallen away from biblical principles and values which have made America the shining city on a hill. During your July4th Independence Day celebration, between eating burgers and hot-dogs, please gather your family to enjoy this new 4 minute music video reminding us of who we are as Americans. https://youtu.be/FZ_P6bpMlYI Thanks and God Bless.

Thank God President Trump is turning our country back to its roots of religious liberty https://dailysign.al/2lLsBKZ. He is putting Americans back to work https://bit.ly/2tPkfFo, defending our borders and restoring the specialness of being an American. Happy Independence Day!

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth: http://bit.ly/2kZqmUk
http://LloydMarcus.com

01/24/18

The “Compact” Gimmick to circumvent the Powers granted to Congress by Article V

By: Publius Huldah

The supremacy clause at Article VI, clause 2, US Constitution, says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Two bills, SJR 31 & HJR 49, which purport to provide for the selection and control of “commissioners” to an “interstate convention” for “proposing amendments” to our federal Constitution, have recently been filed in the Virginia General Assembly.  The bills assert that such an “interstate convention” is authorized by Article I, §10, clause 3; the 10th Amendment; and Article V of our Constitution.

As shown below, the bills are unconstitutional because they seek to circumvent Article V, and are not encompassed within Article I, §10, clause 3, or the 10th Amendment.  Under the supremacy clause, they would be struck down.

I. What Article V says about amending our Constitution

Article V says:

“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…”

Our existing 27 Amendments were obtained under the first method:  Congress proposed them and sent them to the States for ratification or rejection.

We’ve never had a convention under Article V – they are dangerous!  If Congress calls an Article V convention, our existing Constitution could be replaced with a new Constitution which sets up a completely new structure of government. 1

Nevertheless, the People granted to Congress at Article V the power to “call” a convention; and to the Delegates to the convention, the power to “propose amendments”. 2

Yet the Convention of States Project (COS), in brazen disregard of the plain meaning of Article V, has long insisted that the States “call” the convention; the States propose the amendments for the convention to rubberstamp; and the States will have total control over the Delegates to the convention.

SJR 31 & HJR 49 are an implicit admission that we who oppose an Article V convention have proved our point:  Congress really does “call” the Convention; and pursuant to its grant of power to “call” the convention, Congress really is granted by Article I, §8, last clause, the power to make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out the powers granted to Congress by Article V; and the States actually have no power over an Article V convention – except to ask Congress to “call” one. 3

The Congressional Research Service Report dated April 11, 2014 likewise reflects Congress’ clear awareness that it alone has the power to organize and set up an Article V convention. The Report says:

“First, Article V delegates important and exclusive authority over the amendment process to Congress…” [page 4]

“Second . . . Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including . . . (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates; 4 (5) setting internal convention procedures, including formulae for allocation of votes among the states; . . .” [page 4] [italics added]

And contrary to COS’s previous assurances that the States would have total control over an Article V convention, the CRS Report says on page 27:

“In the final analysis, the question what sort of convention?” is not likely to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and a convention assembles.”

In other words, we’ll have to get a convention before we know what the Delegates are going to do!

II. The new Gimmick to circumvent Congress’ powers under Article V

SJR 31 & HJR 49 make the bizarre claim that Article I, §10, clause 3, which says:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…”

is really talking about an “interstate convention” for the States to meet and “propose amendments” to our Constitution!

First of all, our federal Constitution doesn’t address “interstate conventions”! 5 State and local governments and private organizations may hold nationwide conventions (gatherings) on an endless list of matters: trade shows, book fairs, sports events, high school marching band contests, agricultural fairs, meetings of County Sheriffs, whatever they like!  And they don’t need permission from Congress.

Secondly, a “Compact with another State” within the meaning of Article I, §10, clause 3, is separate, distinct, and totally unrelated to the Article V convention called by Congress for the purpose of addressing our federal Constitution. “Compact”, as used in Article I, §10, clause 3, means binding agreements or contracts between States which deal with state matters. Traditionally, “compacts” have been used to resolve such matters as boundary disputes between States; and may be used to address various other issues between States. 6

Article V governs amendments to our Constitution – not Article I, §10, clause 3!  Virginia may not lawfully set up any gimmick to circumvent the powers granted by Article V to Congress.  And Congress may not lawfully approve a “compact” which violates our Constitution!

Thirdly, SJR 31 & HJR 49 claim the 10th Amendment gives States the power to hold an “interstate convention” to propose amendments to the Constitution.  Rubbish!  The 10th Amendment addresses powers “reserved to the States…or to the people.”  It is inapplicable here because no powers respecting an Article V convention were reserved to the States: The People granted to Congress the power to “call” an Article V convention; and to the Delegates, the power to “propose amendments”.  The only power the States have is to ask Congress to call the convention.

Once the requisite number of States has applied to Congress, it’s out of the States’ hands.  Pursuant to Article I, § 8, last clause; 7 Congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out its power to “call” the convention.  And then, our Fate is in the hands of the Delegates; and they can do whatever they want – as they did in 1787.

III. The new Gimmick attempts to circumvent the Plenipotentiary Powers of the Delegates

to an Article V Convention.

Article V shows on its face that the convention is the deliberative body.  The Delegates hold the Power to “propose amendments”; or, to do what our Framers did at the federal “amendments” convention of 1787 (invoke the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence) and write a new Constitution which creates a new government.

So, while the States are free to propose amendments to their Congressional Delegations [and this is what James Madison advised]; 8 the States have no authority to dictate the amendments to be proposed at the convention called by Congress.

And as shown in “Why states can’t prevent a runaway convention” and “Delegates to an Article V Convention can’t be controlled by state laws!” attempts to control Delegates with “unfaithful delegate” laws are laughably ineffective.

Apparently, the convention lobby  now concedes that “unfaithful delegate” bills won’t work, since with SJR 31 & HJR 49, they attempt to circumvent the plenipotentiary powers held by Delegates to an Article V convention, by fabricating a new kind of convention (meeting) out of  Article I, § 10, clause 3!

IV. The solution is to enforce the Constitution we already have

Americans don‘t know what our Constitution says and don’t care what it says. They want what they want; and elect politicians like themselves. The politicians made a mess. To fix the mess, Americans must read our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and enforce them with their votes and by repudiating unconstitutional federal programs.  State and local governments must enforce our Constitution by renouncing federal funds to implement unconstitutional programs and by nullification. See also James Madison’s specific suggestions on how States & Citizens can resist federal usurpations.

End notes:

1 This is why Brilliant Men (Madison, Hamilton, four US Supreme Court Justices, and other eminent jurists and scholars) have warned against another convention.  And this flyer sets forth the Facts of the federal “amendments convention” of 1787 at which our existing Constitution was drafted to replace our first Constitution (the Articles of Confederation).

2 The issue in U.S. v. Sprague  (1931) was whether the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) should have been ratified by conventions in each State instead of by State Legislatures. The Supreme Court held that Article V “is a grant of authority by the people to Congress” and that the people “deliberately made the grant of power to Congress in respect to the choice of the mode of ratification of amendments.” Accordingly, Congress had authority to select ratification of the proposed 18th Amendment by State Legislatures instead of by conventions in each State.

3 THIS handy chart lists who has the power to do what respecting an Article V convention.

4 Congress is under no obligation to permit States to participate in the Convention.  Congress has the power to appoint its own members, federal judges, or whomever else they want as Delegates!

5 “Convention” has several meanings. It can be a meeting or gathering, such as a national convention of County Court Clerks or architects; or it can refer to a treaty with foreign countries, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions on the laws of war.  The author of SJR 31 & HJR 49 may have fallen victim to the Fallacy of Ambiguity since he slips and slides between the two meanings.  “Compact” in Art. I, §10, cl. 3, means “agreement” or “contract” – not meetings!

6 E.g., States could properly enter into “Compacts”, within the meaning of Art. I, §10, cl. 3, wherein they agree to prohibit waste being discharged into a River shared by them; or respecting the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the River.  Even though the federal government has no delegated authority to deal directly with such issues; the requirement of Consent by Congress to such Compacts is proper because States situated above or below the proposed dam could be affected by the dam.

Neither the Federalist Papers nor Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 set forth what our Framers meant by “compacts” at Art. I, §10, cl.3.  Here are two secondary sources: The Evolving Use and the Changing Role of Interstate Compacts: A practitioner’s guide, by Caroline N. Broun & Michael L. Buenger (see pages 1-9 for the historical basis of “interstate compacts”).  See also Justice Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833), Book 3, Ch. 35, §§ 1395-1403.

7 Former law professor and pro-convention operative Rob Natelson’s statements to the contrary are untrue.  See “Rob Natelson perverts the Necessary and Proper Clause and thinks in circles”.

8 E.g., Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville (pages 297-301) at the end of Madison’s point 2 [and then read Madison’s point 3!]

11/29/17

The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster

By Publius Huldah

“The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.” Daniel Webster, 4th of July Oration, 1802.

We live in a time of constitutional illiteracy.  A recent survey found that only 26% of Americans can name the three branches of the federal government. Yet every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows all about how to amend a document he never bothered to read.  Our lawyers were indoctrinated in law school with the Supreme Court’s perversions of our Constitution, and know nothing of our actual Constitution. We should read and learn the Constitution we have before we tinker with it or jump on the bandwagon of tinkerers.  Otherwise, we destroy the “fair and lovely fabric” we were given.

Summary

Under our Constitution, Congress makes the laws, and the President enforces them. The powers of “making” and “enforcing” are separated so that the President and Congress may act as a “check” on each other.

But 100 years ago, Congress starting passing laws they had no constitutional authority to make, and delegated the details to be written in by agencies within the Executive Branch. This process continued and resulted in the Code of Federal Regulations which contains the huge body of regulations made by agencies within the Executive Branch. And thus we got the unconstitutional administrative law state under which every aspect of our lives is being increasingly regulated and controlled. 1

And now appear those who, under the promise of limiting the regulatory administrative law state, propose an Amendment to our Constitution which would legalize it!

1. Only the Legislative Branch has Constitutional Authority to make Laws

Article I of our Constitution created the Legislative Branch of the federal government.  Section 1 thereunder says:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

That means what it says.  Only Congress may make laws [and laws are restricted to the powers granted in the Constitution]; and laws may be made only by elected Senators and Representatives in Congress.

2. The Executive Branch Enforces the Laws Congress makes

Article II of our Constitution created the Executive Branch. A primary function of that branch is to enforce laws passed by the Legislative Branch. Since the President’s Oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, he is obligated to refuse to enforce any Act of Congress which is unconstitutional.

3. Rulemaking by Agencies in the Executive Branch

But during the early 1900s, Congress began to make laws outside the scope of the handful of powers granted to the federal government, and delegated the details to be written by unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Branch.

This is now routine practice: Congress passes an overall statutory framework, and bureaucrats in the Executive Agencies write the rules to flesh it out. The Agencies themselves are often unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers granted in the Constitution. 2

To illustrate:  Congress passed – without reading – the over 2,000-page Obamacare act. Then it went to the Department of Health & Human Services (an unconstitutional federal agency) to have tens of thousands of additional pages of regulations added to fill out the framework.

This unconstitutional practice resulted in the infamous Code of Federal Regulations. The Code is so huge it’s difficult to impossible to keep up with the rules and revisions which pretend to regulate one’s trade, business, or profession.

The administrative law state and agency rules are unconstitutional!  They violate Art. I, § 1, US Constitution, and are outside the scope of powers granted to the federal government.

So, what’s the solution?

4. The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment

Roman Buhler of the “The Madison Coalition” says we should support the “Regulation Freedom” Amendment to the US Constitution:

“Whenever one quarter of the Members of the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate transmit to the President their written declaration of opposition to a proposed federal regulation, it shall require a majority vote of the House and Senate to adopt that regulation.”

Do you see the trap the amendment sets?  It would legalize rulemaking by federal agencies in the Executive Branch and would thus supersede Article I, §1 of our Constitution!  And the entire existing Code of Federal Regulations and the rulemaking process itself – which now violate the Constitution – would be made constitutional!

The amendment would thus bring about a fundamental transformation of our Constitution from one where Laws are made by elected Representatives on only a handful of enumerated powers; to the administrative law state where laws are made by unelected, nameless, faceless bureaucrats in the Executive Branch (the same branch that accuses, prosecutes, and judges violations).  The executive agencies would make whatever Rules they please—and they would stand unless Congress, which often doesn’t even read the laws they pass, overrules it.

It protects 2nd Amendment Rights?

In an email dated November 10, 2017, Mr. Buhler said his proposed amendment “protects 2nd Amendment Rights”.

But his amendment does the opposite – it legalizes all the existing federal regulations which restrict firearms and ammunition. Look at Title 27, Chapter II, Subchapter B, Parts 478 and 479 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  As of now, every rule in Parts 478 & 479 is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated in the Constitution; violates Article I, §1; and violates the 2nd Amendment. But with Buhler’s proposed amendment, all those rules would become constitutional!

Furthermore, the amendment would provide constitutional authority for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to make whatever future rules they want – and they would all be constitutional unless Congress objects and votes against them.

So the amendment vastly increases the powers of the federal government by legalizing what is now grotesquely unconstitutional.

5. Daniel Webster’s Warning

We are in a state of moral, religious, intellectual, and psychological decline. We don’t know what our Constitution says, and didn’t bother to find out. We elected people who didn’t know and didn’t care – and they made a mess.

To fix the mess, we must learn and enforce the Constitution we have and elect people who know it and obey it.  We can gradually downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers. And as to Buhler’s proposed amendment, heed Daniel Webster’s warning:

“…If an angel should be winged from Heaven, on an errand of mercy to our country, the first accents that would glow on his lips would be, Beware! Be cautious! You have everything to lose; you have nothing to gain. We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people.  Miracles do not cluster.  That which has happened but once in six thousand years cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once gone, might leave a void, to be filled, for ages, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism…”Webster’s Oration.

Endnotes:

1 Administrative law judges in Executive Branch agencies decide whether violations of agency rules have occurred. The agencies thus act as lawmaker, prosecutor, and judge!  Isaiah 33:22 says God is our Judge, Law-giver, and King. Because humans are corrupt, our Framers separated the functions into three separate branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.  And since the Oath of Office requires persons within each branch to obey the Constitution – not the other brancheseach branch has a “check” on the other branches.

2 Where’s the constitutional authority for the Dept. of Education?  Energy? Agriculture?   Housing & Urban Development?  Labor?  Environmental Protection?  etc., etc., etc.?

3 Our existing, but long ignored, Constitution limits federal power to the enumerated powers.  But the proposed amendment would supersede that limitation because it permits the exercise of federal power on whatever the Executive Agencies make rules about!