Constitutional Convention

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michael Höhne's picture
Michael Höhne
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 16 2008
Posts: 119
Constitutional Convention

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/081216
My good friend, Tom DeWeese, chairman of the American Policy Center, recently issued an urgent alert regarding a revived effort to assemble a modern Constitutional Convention. Mind you, the United States has not assembled such a Convention since 1787, when a Constitutional Convention replaced the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution. Fortunately, the delegates to the Con Con of 1787 were composed of freedom-loving patriots who had just fought a bloody war for independence and were in no mind to reenact tyranny upon the land they had just fought to liberate. However, can one imagine what would happen if the current bunch of politically correct leftists in Washington, D.C., were to be granted the power to rewrite our Constitution? It would be the end of the United States of America, and that is no hyperbole.

I have to admit that I never heard about it before, but after reading it an doing some research, I'm more than ever wondering what is going on in the United States of America. And sadly enough, it all seems to make sense and it's getting easier to connect the dots.

If 32 states have already agreed on it and only 34 are required to put the Constitutional Convention into power, then the United States of America is only 2 states away from losing its constitution. The resolutions made by eight states recently, trying to stop the US government from going further, now make more sense than ever.

If you don't know what the Consitutional Convention is, then search for it on Google and YouTube.

Given that the following is true,

What the government doesn't want you to know

We Are Under Martial Law! As Declared By The Speaker Last Night! Rep Burgess

U.S. Government Secret Plans Revealed

Martial Law Plans Revealed?

Dennis Kucinich speaks about secret congress meeting!!!

Rep. Doggett Reacts to Rare Secret Session

Marshall Law FEMA CAMP plans

then what should I expect for the near future? Is it just another conspiracy theory, or is it really happening?

I know that Chris' main focus is on financial stuff and he does such a great job. However, if the above is true and the financial crisis is just a vehicle to get the Constitutional Convention in place, and if it's further true that such a Constitutional Convention would give unlimited powers to the government, while at the same time seizing natural rights, and further taking into account that this government, having unlimited powers, also has full control of the largest army and arsenal of weapons of mass destruction on earth, then financial problems won't matter anymore.

Please, can a bunch of people living in the United States of America prove that I'm wrong? It's fine to call me an idiot if that is required, but please tell me that I'm wrong.

gtazman's picture
gtazman
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 48
Re: Constitutional Convention

I agree that a Con Con would be bad for our individual and our natural rights.  I found the following this article at: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/081216

December 16, 2008

Act now to reject Constitutional Convention

By Chuck Baldwin

My good friend, Tom DeWeese, chairman of the American Policy Center,
recently issued an urgent alert regarding a revived effort to assemble
a modern Constitutional Convention. Mind you, the United States has not
assembled such a Convention since 1787, when a Constitutional
Convention replaced the Articles of Confederation with the U.S.
Constitution. Fortunately, the delegates to the Con Con of 1787 were
composed of freedom-loving patriots who had just fought a bloody war
for independence and were in no mind to reenact tyranny upon the land
they had just fought to liberate. However, can one imagine what would
happen if the current bunch of politically correct leftists in
Washington, D.C., were to be granted the power to rewrite our
Constitution? It would be the end of the United States of America, and
that is no hyperbole.

The modern Con Con effort began back in the 1970s. Since then, 32
states have issued the call. The total number of states that are
required to enact the Con Con is 34. Simple math reveals that we are
only two states short of this disaster. As word of this potential
calamity began to surface, the effort stalled with the total states
issuing the call stuck at 32. With the election of Barack Obama,
however, supporters of a Con Con have been emboldened and are now
trying to resurrect the momentum. The state that is currently in the
crosshairs appears to be Ohio.

States that have already approved a Con Con include Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. A few of these
states have since seen the error of their ways and have voted to
rescind their approvals. This fact, alone, should be enough to kill the
push for another Con Con, but don't expect the powers that be to see it
that way. Therefore, it seems that if Ohio approves the Con Con, only
one more state would be required, and upon the call of that 34th state,
a Con Con would be seated. And, no doubt, state number 34 is already
sitting quietly, but excitedly, in the wings, ready to act with
"lightning speed" to seal the deal.

Lest anyone take this lightly or think that a Constitutional Convention
is no big deal, DeWeese properly warned, "In truth no restrictive
language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a
[Constitutional] Convention! Once a Convention is called Congress
determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen,
those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress
itself."

DeWeese is right. If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could
declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely
rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief
Justice Warren Burger once declared, "There is no effective way to
limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The
Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."

Given the fact that Washington, D.C., is comprised mostly of
Big-Government liberals and neocons, it is almost certain that the
founders' Constitution — which was founded on the principles of Natural
Law that protects individual liberty — would be replaced with some sort
of "collective rights" document protecting an ambiguous "common good."
At that point, there is no more United States of America. There would
be no more Bill of Rights protecting individuals from governmental
abuse and overreach. Furthermore, the principles of Natural Law would
be forever removed as a basis of all our nation's laws and statutes.
The nation that had been bequeathed to us by our forebears would be
gone forever.

Yes, it is that bad, and, yes, it is that close to happening!

In the short term, every freedom-loving American must do everything
they can RIGHT NOW to prevent this from happening. Since the state of
Ohio is currently in the crosshairs, it would behoove us to contact
every person we know in Ohio and do whatever it takes to motivate them
to be sure to let their Ohio legislators know how dangerous this is.
Residents and citizens of Ohio need to make sure the Ohio legislature
rejects the call for a Constitutional Convention. By the same token, it
would be wise for all of us who live in states that have not yet
ratified the call for a Con Con to contact our state legislators to
make sure that they understand the issue, and that they will do
everything in their power to resist any attempt to call for a
Constitutional Convention.

For more information on the status of a new Con Con and how to fight it, go to the American Policy Center web site at http://www.americanpolicy.org:80/sledgehammer/victory.htm

In the longer term, there is another question that must be addressed.
What will we do if and when a modern Constitutional Convention is
called and our U.S. Constitution is declared null and void, with a
completely new constitution enacted? Which states will reject the new
constitution? Which states will declare their independence from any
such new union? Or, will they all surrender their state constitutions
and go along with this Twenty-First Century New World Order — a New
World Order that will doubtless incorporate some form of North American
Community or Union?

It might be a very good idea to immediately begin identifying those
states that would unequivocally reject any new union, and would be
willing to declare their independence from whatever government would
evolve from a modern Constitutional Convention. Yes, I am saying it: we
may need to resurrect the original Thirteen Colonies, except they would
probably not number thirteen, and, in all likelihood, they would not be
located on the East Coast.

I am convinced that there are still millions of Americans who are sick
and tired of surrendering their liberties to Big-Government sycophants
in both the Democrat and Republican parties, and that if a
Constitutional Convention is called — and our U.S. Constitution is
wiped away or rewritten — are ready and willing to declare their
independence all over again. So, I issue the call: where are the new
Thirteen Colonies?

We better start looking now, because there will come a point when the
time for looking for good ground is over and the time to stand our
ground will be upon us.

© Chuck Baldwin

gtazman's picture
gtazman
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 48
Re: Constitutional Convention

Michael,

I believe you fond the article first my bad.

Gary

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: Constitutional Convention
Michael Höhne wrote:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/081216
...However, can one imagine what would happen if the current bunch of politically correct leftists in Washington, D.C., were to be granted the power to rewrite our Constitution? It would be the end of the United States of America, and that is no hyperbole.

My question is:

What do "they" want to rewrite the Constitution with?  If we try to think about the possible scenarios that might happen then what is the best and worst case scenario that could happen if the Constitution was rewritten?  Will we end up like Iraq, with a (new) Constitution?  Would they rewrite the Constitution to put us (as many of us as they could) into concentration camps like we (U.S.) did with the Japanese?  Will the concentration camps be like those of Nazi Germany?  Do they really care about legislating with Justice and Democracy or do they want to impose an Aristocracy, Monarchy, Oligarchy (as so many other countries have)?  How could we possibly know what the outcome will be if we don't know their motive(s)?  I just hope that I don't end up in some camp or gassed. 

My logic tells me this:

America was created by replacing one Constitution for another.

The Constitution we have now is (in our opinion) better than the former.

So what makes us jump to the conclusion that a "new" Constitution will be necessarily worse than our current one?

From what I gather, from the American Revolution, is one faction branching off to begin independence brought about by thoughts of new ideals and grievances.

This faction had the intention of establishing power-- a new power, to govern and rule, set by the new Constitution.

The people of the American Revolution traded one State for another.

Yet, I see many on this site that feel that we should not have a State even if it is sovereign.  Should we have a government (leader) or not?

(I am playing devil's advocate because these are some of the questions that I have) 

 

 

Michael Höhne's picture
Michael Höhne
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 16 2008
Posts: 119
Re: Constitutional Convention

The difference is between individualism and collectivism. The following is from the United States Declaration of Independence:

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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

And the next is from the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights:

Article 1 

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.


Article 4

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society.

If some new type of constitution is to be written, then you can expect it to be similar to the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. So where's the difference? The United States Declaration of Independence states that there are "certain unalienable Rights" and "that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it". It goes even further to say that it's not only "their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".

Though the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights declares similar rights in Article 1, Article 4 clearly states that those rights "are determined by law" and "the State may subject such rights" to "promote the general welfare in a democratic society".

In other words, the United States Declaration of Independence gives all power to the people, whereas the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights gives all power to the state. And do you see any real limitation in "the State may subject such rights to promote the general welfare in a democratic society"? A democratic society means that an action is acceptable if it does benefit the majority of people (> 50%). For instance, if you say that a group of people poses a security threat and that putting them into detention camps would make the life of most people safer and therefore "promote the general welfare", then you could argue that Article 4 of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights gives you that power.

This may be an extreme example, but reality is that once it is declared that rights are determined by law, then such rights can be restrained by changing these laws, whereas the idea of the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for/of the United States of America was written in the clear intent to prevent exactly this. If rights can be taken away from you, then it's only a matter of time when it will be done. With the Constitution for/of the United States of America in place, it is difficult to form a World Government. Without the constitution or a new constitution based on collectivism, it is possible, because that would be to "promote the general welfare in a democratic society", for instance.

On http://www.freedom-force.org you will find a lot of related material.

 

 

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
Re: Constitutional Convention

"Please, can a bunch of people living in the United States of America
prove that I'm wrong? It's fine to call me an idiot if that is
required, but please tell me that I'm wrong."

You're not wrong, I wish you were but you're not. They will start with a global economic system and then through another crisis enact a global govt with the UN as head of the world govt.

Caroline

There is nothing wrong with our present constitution, it just needs to be followed.

Greg

Michael Höhne's picture
Michael Höhne
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 16 2008
Posts: 119
Re: Constitutional Convention

You're not wrong, I wish you were but you're not. They will start with a global economic system and then through another crisis enact a global govt with the UN as head of the world govt.  

I share the same concerns and think that exactly this is the plan. However, what are we going to do about it? Nothing? Just let it happen? It's time to act, and that goes far beyond reading. The mainstream media is not telling it, so the only way to raise concerns is by telling others and using the Internet to reach the public.

Sadly enough, according to Alexa, there are three "adult" sites in the 50 post popular web sites, so the ignorance of most people is a good reason why it may be too late. However, I don't consider "doing nothing" an option and therefore changed the content on my blog accordingly. I may only reach a few thousand people, but it's the best I can do today and I hope that people wake up in time.

 

 

drb's picture
drb
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 11 2008
Posts: 95
Re: Constitutional Convention

 

Quote:

Given that the following is true,

Quote:

What the government doesn't want you to know

We Are Under Martial Law! As Declared By The Speaker Last Night! Rep Burgess

U.S. Government Secret Plans Revealed

Martial Law Plans Revealed?

Dennis Kucinich speaks about secret congress meeting!!!

Rep. Doggett Reacts to Rare Secret Session

Marshall Law FEMA CAMP plans

then what should I expect for the near future? Is it just another conspiracy theory, or is it really happening?

Michael,

The key words are "Given that the following is true".  Are you asking, or are you stating, that the referenced links are (all) 'true'?

I've looked at some of these and find that at least one (Link #4: “Martial Law Plans Revealed)” is a blatant parody of news (anything produced by the Onion (Onion-Span) should be considered entertainment, not news – see the last few frames (“Congressional Forum on America’s Wild Goats – a disappearing nuisance”)   [p.s. I love the Onion – it is so irreverent]

Also – Link #2 (We are Under Martial Law…) pertains to ‘Congressional’ Martial laws which is parliamentary procedure to expedite voting without providing for the (normally) mandatory period of time allocated to actually ‘read’ proposed bills (see link)

Quote:

Under the martial law procedure, longstanding House rules that require at least one day between the unveiling of significant legislation and the House floor vote on that legislation — so that Members can learn what they are being asked to vote on — are swept away.  Instead, under “martial law,” the Leadership can file legislation with tens or hundreds of pages of fine print and move immediately to debate and votes on it, before Members of Congress, the media, or the public have an opportunity to understand fully what provisions have been altered or inserted into the legislation behind closed doors.  This is the procedure that the Leadership intends to use to muscle through important bills in the next two days.

The last link (Marshall [sic] Law FEMA CAMP plans)  had nothing to do with either Martial Law or FEMA camps.

Bottom line – there is a lot of ‘stuff’ on the net requiring hip boots to wade through. (Of course, this provides the 'perfect' environment to take actions against the populace in plain view without requiring the Government to resort to any amount of subterfuge Wink )

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Constitutional Convention

Michael Höhne - I wish I could say otherwise but we are not witnessing a financial crisis in the United States, we are facing a financial coup de tat.  The central bankers are taking over, and they are moving out in the open in flagrant disregard for the needs and popular desires of the people.

I am glad that you have come to openly suspect the motives of our leaders.  It is difficult and uncomfortable to realize that our political and financial system is a sham - a deception, a giant and evil conspiracy of wealthy elite bankers to subjugate all of humanity.

The United States has been a great obstacle in that we have a constitution, bill of rights and we have a strong military.  We could simply say NO tomorrow and begin rounding up the perpetrators.  In recognition of these strengths, America must be financially ruined and any dissidents locked up under the tyranny of martial law.

Now that you know, you have an obligation - to help wake up others.  

By the way, this is battle has been going on through-out the history of our country - you might want to read this historical primer:

America's Forgotten War Against the Central Banks

 

 

GDon's picture
GDon
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 2 2008
Posts: 86
Re: Constitutional Convention

Michael -

You are absolutely correct in the distinction you identify, between the Declaration of Independence / Bill of Rights / US Constitution, and the UN "Covenant".

You are correct, that the forces aligned against America's premise, far outweigh those who understand it's zenith in human existence under political systems.

You are correct that something "must be done" about it.

The Founding Fathers understood that Amerca's premise and system, required a form of "insurance" in the worst-case scenario threatening the concept of individual liberty, and were explicit about what that insurance consisted of.

First -

The Declaration of Independence / BOR and US Constitution were the pinnacle of the Enlightenment Period - They proclaimed that the rights of the individual, and the extent of his liberty, are supreme, and are ordained from the highest authority imaginable (God), and that each individual was a "sovereign" - i.e., a "king".

The UN "Covenant" is nothing more than a re-hash of 50,000 years of human tribal history - i.e., that the rights of the individual are provided by the tribe, group, mob or king.  That the individual "is given" their rights by the tribe, mob, group or king, and that liberty is to be circumscribed by the tribe, mob, group or king.

Rewriting the US Constitution, is an action which can only be a regression - i.e., toward the history of individual liberty as secondary to the power of the mob.     No thanks.

So...You ask - "What can we do?"  "What action can we take?"

Rational people plan for worst-case scenarios - we have Health Insurance for illness, Auto Insurance for accidents, Life Insurance for our own demise, etc.

So - what is "America's Insurance" against it's own demise, and/or a move toward despotism?

I'm going to repeat part of an earlier blog, because I feel it answers the question.

As “America’s Insurance”, the Founders only included ONE Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which specified WHY it was necessary for inclusion – the 2nd Amendment.   (but perhaps not like you think - this is not a rebellious "call for arms", but for rational and legal Constituional action - read below).

Note that, the 2nd Amendment was the only, of the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments of the Constitution), that gave an explicit reason why it was included and necessary -   to wit -  "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (i.e, the "reason"), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (the "right enumerated"). 

None of the other rights enumerated as Amendments state their reason for inclusion.   And this, because it was (when the SHTF), the most important.

Keep in mind that, as originally designed by the Founders, the "Government", including the method of ensuring that law was civil and obeyed, is/was US - all we sovereign citizens ("sovereign", in as each his own King).  

Further, the Founders felt that the security was to be ensured by a combination of all citizens, in concert and working with specialized law enforcement groups.  This was their definition of what comprised the "militia of the several states".

It was never intended that the general populus were NOT to be involved with "securing a free State" (their own), but instead, each individual citizen, to work in concert with local and state law enforcement, comprised and made up,  the "militia of the several states".  

The 2nd Amendment was specifically designed as a decentralized and local-to-bottom-up security system for insuring individual freedom.  Note that this is diametrically opposed to a "top-down" Federally-imposed police state - they are diametrically opposed in intention.

Also note that "the militia"  was never considered to be  the "standing military" (today often referred to as National Guard, US Military, Homeland Security forces, etc)   - in Constitutional times, full-time soldiers were referred to as "Regulars", and were not "militia".   There is a ton of historical writing on this very matter.

However, today, the word "militia" has been lampooned as right-wing, tin-foil "crazies" at odds with the process of securing and governing of our country.     Consequently, almost all State Governors are actually in defiance of the US Constitution, which, in combination with Founders writings, prescribed them the responsibility of ensuring that "the militia of the several states" were in a constant state of readiness.  

Of course, the concept was wiped aside and left to deteriorate. In this status, nothing could be further from what the Consitutional actually prescribed.

Today, those in government who are "at-odds" with Constitutional principles, who have been aware of the potential for monetary collapse for a LONG time, and are in control of a "top-down"political and martial oligarchy, with readiness to "impose" whatever version of law they may deem necessary, do NOT have the interests of the United States sovereign citizenry as a concern.

One person who speaks with as much expertise and credentials as available on these issues, is Dr. Edwin Vieira.  

He is a 4-degreed Harvard graduate PhD and Constitutional lawyer, having tried 4 cases before the US Supreme Court - winning 3, and is an expert on Constitutional matters, with particular focus on the Monetary Basis in the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment. 

His website is here: http://edwinvieira.com/

He is currently working with State congressional bodies and law enforcement agencies, to see the revitalization of the true "militia of these several states", as was strictly prescribed by the Constitution.  

Why?

Because the Constitution put the 2nd Amendment in such esteem, so as to prevent a top-down "police state" from occuring - i.e., "for the security of a free state".    

The rationale of the Founding Fathers applies equally under a scenario of a monetary collapse, as from insurrection, invasion or general lawlessness.  

You can read Dr Vieira's rationale (some of it) below, and in his book: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin187.htm

This activity is "something that can be done", before any such SHTF conditions.  

Your own State Congress can and should get involved, and the effort has been named after a similar function during the Founders times - i.e, The Committees of Safety, and can be found here: http://www.committeesofsafety.org/

You can read his articles and books on the same, and I highly recommend them.   He is often featured on many of Congressman Ron Paul's website links, and they have worked together on many forums, to return to sound money, and American prosperity.

His articles on Constitutional money and congressional action to push for a return to Constitutional forms of money is also being organized and is in the works (the State of Indiana recently pushed a bill for a gold-based payment system).

The 2nd Amendment, with Constitutional revitalization of the "militia of the several states" (i.e., as the Constitution originally designed) is America's final and ultimate insurance policy against it's demise from both internal and external forces - pure and simple.

It is completely moral, legal, Constitutional and enforceable, and it is our right, as ordained from the ultimate source.

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Constitutional Convention

GDon - while I agree with most of what you are saying, I think that Edwin Viera and the "Committees of Safety" is mostly a distraction from bigger issues.  Personally, I find little hope or relief that local militias will stand and stem the coming tide of tyranny.  

Larry

 

drb's picture
drb
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 11 2008
Posts: 95
OMG - Exercising a provision of the Constitution is so wrong!

There seems to be some misunderstanding regarding Constitutional Conventions. The original Constitution provides methods by which it can be altered.  This is covered in Article 5 (reprinted below):

Quote:

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.

While the majority of changes (amendments) to the Constitution have been initiated via Congress, the fact that the alternative path has not been exercised in recent history is not a basis (unto itself) to treat is application as 'dangerous' or something which should be feared.  Instead, those of us in the United States should revel in the freedoms inherent in our Constitution including the freedom to change it and its allowances for mitigating the concentration of power.

Were it not for such provisions we would not have the following Amendments

1st    Freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, to petition, and to assemble
2nd    The right to keep and bear arms
3rd    No quartering of soldiers in private houses during times of peace or war
4th    Interdiction of unreasonable Searches and seizures; warrants
5th    Indictments; Due process; Self-incrimination; Double jeopardy, and rules for Eminent Domain.
6th    Right to a fair and speedy public trial, Notice of accusations, Confronting one's accuser, Subpoenas, Right to counsel
7th    Right to trial by jury in civil cases
8th    No excessive bail & fines or cruel & unusual punishment
9th    Unenumerated rights
10th    limits the power of the Federal government
11th    Immunity of states from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders.
12th    Revision of presidential election procedures
13th    Abolition of slavery, except as punishment for a crime.
14th    Citizenship, state due process, applies Bill of Rights to the states, revision to apportionment of Representatives, Denies public office to anyone who has rebelled against the United States
15th    Suffrage no longer restricted by race
16th    Allows federal income tax
17th    Direct election to the United States Senate
18th    Prohibition of alcohol (Repealed by 21st amendment)
19th    Women's suffrage
20th    Term Commencement for congress (January 3) and president (January 20.) (This amendment is also known as the "lame duck amendment".)
21st    Repeal of Eighteenth Amendment; state and local prohibition permitted
22nd    Limits the president to two terms
23rd    Representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College
24th    Prohibition of the restriction of voting rights due to the non-payment of poll taxes
25th    Presidential Succession
26th    Voting age nationally established as age 18 (see suffrage)
27th    Variance of congressional compensation

 

I personally find any attempt to by an individual, or individuals, to undermine the provisions of the Constitution of the United States to be of the greatest concern and the source of the largest risk to our freedoms.   

(I do not address this statement at you Michael - you are a citizen of Germany (if I recall correctly) and it is understandable that you might not be aware of these provisions.  I do address it towards the author of the original site you referenced and in general towards those American Citizens who fail to educate themselves before crystallizing a dangerous world view into their mindset.)

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: Constitutional Convention
GDon wrote:

  

His website is here: http://edwinvieira.com/

 

Because the Constitution put the 2nd Amendment in such esteem, so as to prevent a top-down "police state" from occuring - i.e., "for the security of a free state".    

The idea that a state is "free", I believe, is a contradiction in terms.  A state, is by definition, something that is governed by 'x'.  If there are govenors there must then be those that are governed (or told what to do or not to do).  That is not freedom to many people.  We have a majority rule in the country.  That to me is not "free" for those in the minority (whatever the case may be or whatever examples anyone brings forth).  Given that we have a majority rule law definition, for all of you, the idea is freedom.  Majority rule might be nice until it becomes the tyranny of the majority rule.  Majority rule is certainly not freedom according to most of the Libertarians (hard to articulate) that I find on this site.  I see many contradictions with many of the ideas set forth (complaints about the gov.) compared to the arguments that are written formally backed by websites, documents, journals, and papers.  I say forget the top-down or bottom-up approach to government and just leave people to live their life according to nature's law; not man's law.  Because if it's man's law, it will most likely not be my law.  If it is not my "law", then I am not free.  At least by following nature's law, I know that I don't have to come up with new "system" everytime the old system fails; or modifying the old system into a new system. 

Michael Höhne's picture
Michael Höhne
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 16 2008
Posts: 119
Re: OMG - Exercising a provision of the Constitution is so ...

Daniel,

You are right, I'm German and it is indeed difficult to read and evaluate so much information in a short amount of time. Anyway, section 1 of the 14th amendment says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So by default you have two citizenships und unless explicitly expressed by yourself in your own declaration of indepedence, the law of the United States is applied and only amendments 11-25 of the constitution apply to you. If you declare your independence, then you choose the republican form of government and the Bill of Rights do apply:

http://www.freedom-school.com/history/usa.html

Few are aware today that their political choice has been made for them, and it is a political choice that has taken away their absolute rights under the Constitution and its first ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights. They are unaware that they were given at birth an economic privilege of an alternative political domain - allowed by the Constitution, but operating outside of it. An alternative domain that operates with the same Divine Right of Kings as did the King of England. Thus, the Constitution is operating in an economic capacity rather than a political one.

When we ponder why our nation is in the midst of an economic crisis like we have never seen before, we cannot understand it is the result of our ignorance. Ignorance of how our silence has given our federal government and its political subdivisions (called "States") permission to tax its people without representation and confiscate their property when they do not go along with the Codes and laws - especially the tax laws. Ignorance that has allowed our federal government and its political subdivisions to compel us to perform to laws that are destroying our business by exacting a fee - like a protection racket - for what should be a right.

Instead, our absolute rights are now relative privileges, handed out like food in a concentration camp. Instead of being able to stand as an individual for what you believe, every special interest group has become our conscience. Laws and Codes by the hundreds are feudalizing the will to produce from the soul of each person by making him pay for the failures, inefficiency and greed of others - called limited liability. And still more laws are teaching citizens of all ages that someone else - Uncle Sam - is responsible for us from cradle to grave.

It's getting very complicated here, but again, if this is ture, then the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the majority of the U.S. citizens.

I again hope that this is wrong.

drb's picture
drb
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 11 2008
Posts: 95
Re: Constitutional Convention

Michael,

I am not a Lawyer (I am an Electrical Engineer) - but frankly speaking - I'm having a hard time in finding credibility with the sources of information you are citing. The fourteenth Amendment was written to force states to grant equal protection of the law to all  citizens.  This was necessary to ensure that the states did not deny due process to former slaves and an underlying purpose of the authors of the amendment was to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision of the Supreme Court (see link for details of that onerous decision)

I would be very suprised if the author of the the link you posted was a practicing lawyer.  He/she appears to have an agenda and is using the turgid writing of the Constitution and its associated Amendments to obfuscate that agenda while appearing to sound authoritative on the subject.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments