No products in the cart.

News

Why the Article V Convention Must Be Opposed

 

TexasEditor’s Note: The following article is in reference to an article at The New American, here:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/20484-battle-over-constitutional-convention-rages-in-texas

______________

 

Why the Article V Convention Must Be Opposed

 

by Jay Stang, Texas Oath Keepers President and member of our Board of Directors

Fellow Oath Keepers,

The Constitution provides us several avenues to amend, or change it. The avenue most Americans are familiar with is the amendment. The least known, until now, is the convention, also identified in Article V. The convention, known in this day as the Convention of the States (CoS), would be convened for the purpose of proposing amendments. Is there anything else that could happen? I can’t say for sure, but consider this: if the US Government had any chance of ridding itself of the chains that Jefferson prescribed, do you think it would take the chance? Any way to rid itself formally of the Bill of Rights?

Who would be sent to this Convention? Remember, if the Article V machinery is sent into motion, think about who will control it? Our current federal government? How many times have you been frustrated with the failure of congressional leadership in both houses to uphold their oaths, or to put our interests first? Guess what? They’ll be forming and planning the convention. Uh oh. There are several pieces of state legislation in the Texas Legislature right now to specify delegates, how they are selected, their qualifications, etc. That sounds great on paper, doesn’t it? Will the delegates faithfully execute the charter given them by the various state legislatures around the country? What did the delegates to the last convention do? Here is the exhausting detail in which the convention is described.

Article V:

“The Congress…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;…”

That’s it. That’s all the Constitution says regarding the convention. It doesn’t say what they are allowed to talk about, or not allowed to talk about. Congress doesn’t get any guidance on how to run it. What if they throw out the whole Constitution? Is it possible? Do you trust John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and President Obama?

Why do we need a CoS? To pass a balanced budget amendment? Would that solve our problems? One more law, one more amendment? Does the federal government follow the Constitution now? If not, why not?

Friends, the Constitution was created for a moral and religious people. It is unsuited for the governing of any other. Why? Moral and religious people govern themselves. They don’t need an all powerful government to do it for them. With no integrity or ethics, the Constitution is merely an eloquent collection of words on paper. It has no magic power. No soul. The Constitution is only as good as the people who follow it. It is not the laws on the books that matter; it is the law in our hearts that matters. If we can not govern ourselves, someone else will. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Please ponder these questions as you decide whether to support or oppose the Convention of the States. Just remember this: when people tell you not to worry, that’s when you should start.

OK TX ComeTakeIt

1

Elias Alias

Editor in Chief for Oath Keepers; Unemployed poet; Lover of Nature and Nature's beauty. Slave to all cats. Reading interests include study of hidden history, classical literature. Concerned Constitutional American. Honorably discharged USMC Viet Nam Veteran. Founder, TheMentalMilitia.Net

Oath Keepers Merchandise

243 comments

    1. “I hope more have been added.”

      So you do NOT support the US Constitution?
      You want to allow the enemies of our nation of our liberty, of our sovereignty to destroy our nation in one fell swoop?
      Do you even know WHO is funding this “call for a Convention of States”?

      Please do the research before you let them talk you into betraying your nation.

      The last thing we want if we want to REMAIN a free Constitutional Republic under the Constitution of the United States of America is to let them change our US Constitution or do away with it completely and put us under the NWO. Follow the money!

      1. Those who support the Convention of States Project ARE supporting the Constitution, it’s called Article V of the Constitution. Those opposed are basically saying that the framers, who unanimously approved the second part of Article V for a States Convention to amend the Constitution, didn’t know what they were doing so let’s just ignore this one and disparage anyone who supports it.

      2. Exactly, Cal. Enforce the one we HAVE. Why would anyone believe that the enemies of our Constitutional Republic would follow any NEW verbiage in our Constitution when they blatantly ignore the existing verbiage, unless the intent is to put something in the “new” version that gives them the ill-gotten authority, the color of law – to do something they cannot do under the existing Constitution? Personally, I do not believe these people are merely ignorant. It is my view that NO ONE can be that “off”, that they are indeed infiltrators, hijackers.

      3. I tend to agree with the position that by pushing for a COS, is to allow the genie out of the bottle, without controlling the influence of money and the effects it has on many corrupted representatives. Without prohibiting our elected representatives from accepting money or any other gratuities from outside sources, they will continue to be bought and controlled by others with an agenda, not in the best interest of the People. If our representatives have no repercussions for their unethical actions, as is evident in DC today, the COS would be a ripe target to infiltrate, manipulate and destroy the constitution by nefarious globalist trying to destroy our Democratic Republic. Tread lightly, look for tripwires, watch your six!

    2. Oath Keepers must redact the article against convention of states to propose amendments! This article in itself is promoting rejection of the US Constitution

      1. Mr. Middleton,
        I would like to point out that Jay Stang hasn’t said he thinks the Article V convention is unconstitutional. He, as I read it, is saying it would be a mistake to call for one. You say “This article in itself is promoting rejection of the US Constitution”. How so? To put forward a belief that it would be a bad idea to call one, is not saying Jay Stang denies it is Constitutional. You can call a Convention, or not call one. Mr. Stang is saying he opposes calling one.

        Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor

        1. People wake up; do you really like the direction our Nation is taking? Do you really think that the establishment career politicians in Washington will change that direction? Makes no difference who’s elected president or to any other office; they can’t and won’t fix it.
          A Convention of States, called for the purpose ” of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government” (and that’s what the State Legislators are voting on) will be confined to that purpose; join the wave and redeem our out-of-control Federal Government before the drive our Nation into bankruptcy..

          1. There is nothing in Article V that says it is to be used to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. Are you aware that the only power state legislatures have is to put in the call for a convention?
            Article V says CONGRESS WILL DECIDE ON THE MODE OF RATIFICATION.
            You are actually giving Congress MORE POWER.

          2. The comment was ” There is nothing in Article V that says it is to be used to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. And that CONGRESS WILL DECIDE ON THE MODE OF RATIFICATION….. Three things you wrong about. First: The framers could not foresee what amendments, if an, would b needed. Therefor, Article V does not say what amendments could be submitted. It only requires that 34 states submit application for the same purpose “Limiting the power and scope of the Federal Government”. Second: The state legislators decide how many delegates to send and chooses the delegates. Regardless of the number of delegates they send, it one state, one vote. Once the 34 state threshold has been made, Congress will be notified and they have only three responsibilities. 1) Set the location, 2) Set he time and 3) Choose one of the two methods for ratification. By the state legislature or by the popular vote of the citizen of that state. That’s it. I don’t see where you are getting that Congress is actually getting more power.

    3. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution as it is written, it just needs to be enforced. I was delegate in Nevada 2008 and I was supporting Ron Paul, and I saw how a convention could be manipulated, illegally shut down and our voices silenced by the GOP no less. You think the likes of Bloomberg or Soros will not have individuals in all the states? If the 2nd amendment were gone after (or any other rights) we would be forced to fight immediately. Right now we still have a little breathing room to demand the Constitution be honored and enforced.

      1. The 16th and 17th Amendments must be repealed and the 14th amended to eliminate anchor babies. Congress is not going to do that ergo a CoS is imperative.

        1. 14th amendment does NOT give babies born to illegals US citizenship.
          You must stop thinking that only good things would happen at this convention. Anything can happen.

  1. I am writing in support of the cautionary note being struck in this article. Once the convention is opened, citizens cannot ensure that it will work towards a particular outcome. Consider that today American citizens are unable to control their government in important ways. The most likely scenario is that an Article V convention would be hijacked by powerful business interests. The amount of money (market share) at stake is huge in our incestuous, tightly-woven business environment. Such an opportunity would be deemed too important to be left to ordinary citizens and their “puny” demands. An Article V convention would be our Pandora’s Box.

    1. Regarding ” Once the convention is opened, citizens cannot ensure that it will work towards a particular outcome” and similar arguments, this cannot happen with the ConventionOfStates.com Application which is limited and reads:

      “Section 1. The legislature of the State of ______ hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a
      convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the
      United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”
      http://tinyurl.com/COSstateAppl

      So this comment I am responding to on this site is just wrong, and responding to fear.l
      I DO NOT expect that those WHO TOOK THE OATH, and are OATH keepers would be operating from FEAR. What is this?!?!?!? I am astounded at the lack of courage here to follow the Constitution and ANY part of it. And Article V is one of ONLY SEVEN Article in the Constitution, yet I see FEAR and loathing at ONE SEVENTH of the Article of the Constitution.
      I cannot believe what I am reading here…. Really…where is the Courage?

      1. The COS application pretends to be limited, but the carefully-chosen words it contains create an unlimited convention.

        For example, it says the convention shall impose fiscal restraints. Now show me, if you can, where those restraints are required to be lower than current spending levels? Can’t find it? Does that mean they could set the levels HIGHER?

        What about limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government? The Constitution already does that. This amendment proposes to replace those limits. Would those new limits be an increase or a decrease in power and jurisdiction? It does not say. It is a blank check, placed in the hands of the convention.

        COS talks about calling a limited convention, but they do not do so.

      2. hey what good is courage with fewer tools to increase its chances for success? …most CoS attendees are destined to be elite shills, so they will weaken We The People’s STANDING with the stroke of a pen.

      3. ““Section 1. The legislature of the State of ______ hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention…”

        The resulting confusion, and lack of clear guidance in the Constitution, will have to be sorted out by the congressional leadership since Article 5 says that Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments” when requested by enough states.

        Under Article 5 of the Constitution, such a convention can be convened when requested by two-thirds of the states, and it is one of two ways to propose amendments to the nation’s founding document.

        The other method — by which all previous constitutional amendments have been initiated — requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. Ratifying amendments then require three-fourths of the states to approve.

        California seeks constitutional convention… I can personally tell you that there is not a more corrupt, communist state then California. If they want it, start looking for HOW they can get us out from under the US Constitution.

        http://dailysignal.com/2011/02/10/dont-be-fooled-by-article-v-conventions/
        “The idea that there might be a simple fix to all our problems has seduced many thoughtful and well-intentioned men and women over the ages. If only we could do this, then all would be well.

        We stand with our persevering friends and allies. But let’s not be fooled. By the very nature of man and the imperfection of politics, there are no silver bullets.

        Such is the case with the proposal to hold an Article V constitutional amendments convention. A perennial question in American history, it seems on its face to be a simple suggestion to deploy a forgotten option to bring about the changes we seek.

        In the course of our work advising state and federal lawmakers and conservative allies across the country, we have been giving this issue close attention and study. Along with Trent England, the director of constitutional studies at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, I’ve written our assessment of the meaning and status of Article V as part of our Constitution Guidance for Lawmakers series (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/article-v-congress-conventions-and-constitutional-amendments)
        http://www.heritage.org/Research/Projects/Constitutional-Guidance.

        Stemming from that analysis, and taking into consideration the circumstances under which we are now operating, we have come to the conclusion that an Article V convention is not the answer to our problems. The lack of precedent, extensive unknowns, and considerable risks of an Article V amendments convention should bring sober pause to advocates of legitimate constitutional reform contemplating this avenue. We are not prepared to encourage state governments at this time to apply to Congress to call an amendments convention.

        This should come as no surprise. While the congressional method of proposing amendments is unambiguous—Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses deem it necessary, may propose specific amendments—things get murkier with an Article V convention. The vagueness of this method led Madison to oppose the proposal at the Constitutional Convention: “difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum etc. which in constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided.” Combine that with the fact that no such amending convention has ever occurred, and too many serious questions are left open and unanswered.

        The requirement that amendments proposed by such a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states is a significant limit on the process and would likely prevent a true “runaway” convention from fundamentally altering the Constitution. But we don’t think it is at all clear, for instance, that two-thirds of the states calling for an amendments convention can limit the power of all the states assembled in that convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. Other questions include the many practical aspects of how an amending convention would operate and whether any aspects of such a convention (including going beyond its instructions) would be subject to judicial review.

        That said, advocating an Article V convention as part of a state-based strategy to press Congress to pass a constitutional amendment is not unreasonable. Precisely because of the potential chaos of the process, the very threat of an amendments convention will pressure Congress to act rather than risk having one proceed. That’s what happened in the 1980s with the unsuccessful push for a balanced budget amendment (good example) but also during the progressive era with the successful push for the direct election of senators (bad example).

        Serious scholars will undoubtedly continue to debate the historical record and speculate about the possibility of an amendments convention under Article V. But the argument that, as a matter of course, we should spend considerable time, money and effort right now to design, plan and implement a convention—despite the unknowns and risks involved—is both imprudent and potentially dangerous. It is a distraction that inevitably gets bogged down in a debate over technical details, taking valuable attention and focus away from the substance of the constitutional reforms themselves. Claims of the ease and efficacy of an Article V convention are also misleading to the many committed and well-meaning reformers and activists who are serious about constitutional change in the United States.” (End quote)

      4. You think it is courageous to let the door be opened to throwing out our Constitution?
        I am tired of your side throwing out the “fear” and “fearmongering” name calling.

    2. Mr Transparency,

      You seem to be a Semi-Constitutionalist. You make fear-mongering statements that are not based in fact. Simply read the document, in particular Article V. The clause, a “Convention for proposing Amendments” is perfectly written, in plain English. The only outcome is proposed Amendments. That’s it.

      Your claim would be correct, however, if you are referring to Supreme Court rulings. See the Constitution Annotated for the real, unratified Constitution as used by our Government today. Therefore, an Article V Convention may be our last best hope for pulling us back from the brink.

      David Dietrich

  2. Agree. If you can find the article (hslda.org)Michael Farris of parentalrights.org leading the fight for an amdtmt on parental rights has elaborated recently on why we need the amendment using the old argument for why we needed the bill of rights. While I agree with his assessment I believ it won’t make a difference with our current congress, administration or courts. Lawlessness begets lawlessness and the only cure is justice. Someone is gonna have to bestow upon the lawless some justice.

  3. I resign from this group. I cannot abide with people who do not understand. Article V is our only hope.

    1. I completely agree! I can’t believe there are this many hopeless people in this group. I thought this was the group of hope and salvation! I believe that the demands of the people would be so loud during a convention that all special interests trying to take control would be squashed! Our power is greater than we think, and fear is our only enemy!

    2. you do realize that George Soros is a progressive billionaire. He is donating tons of money to push article v thru. You do realize once they walk into that convention. There is NOTHING we can do on what happens in that convention.

      Our chances to oppose anything they decide on will be gone. They can wipe the bill of rights. They can draft a new constitution. They can write an amendment to excuse them from all actions in the convention and never go to jail. There is tons of things they can do. Money talks. I wouldnt put faith into a system that can be just as corrupted by the rich as it does our very own fed govt.

      Yes convention of states claims that it will for only specific amendments. When was the last time democrats and republicans were on the same note for constitutionality?

      You think blue and red states can figure out whats best for this country by having free reign to the changing of the constitution?

      I think you are the one being misled. Wolfpac and SOROS and many others are behind this convention.

      1. Willvas,

        You do realize that George Soros (who is a billionaire) is cooperating with a questionable John Birch Society to oppose an Article V Convention:

        http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-birchers-fight-constitutional-fix-to-limit-obama-congress/article/2561547

        And if you would simply read the elegantly concise Article V, you would understand that the only thing that can be produced by a Convention for proposing Amendments is proposed Amendments.

        So, unlike the scary things arising from our current Federal Government, nothing scary can happen here. There is no man behind the Green Curtain.

        Since you are opposing such a Convention, t appears that you must be paid by Wolfpac and George Soros. Otherwise, you would be on the side of We the People.

        David Dietrich

        1. That is an out and out fabrication. The John Birch Society would not EVER work with George Soros. You are fomenting a civil war and KNOW IT. So, you’re not just abysmally “ill-informed”, are you?

        2. ddietrich, George Soros SUPPORTS an Article V convention. JBS OPPOSES it. Get your facts straight. Or, do you already know?

      2. Having been around this issue for over 20 years, I can tell you that I’ve seen all the arguments for an Article V convention and NONE of them can explain how a “new” version of the Constitution would be followed any more faithfully than the existing one – unless new verbiage that the proponents of the convention want in there – gives them some new “legitimacy” (color of law, actually) for what they want to accomplish. That Soros and other leftist groups control so many of the states already and have the intent to hijack such a convention once that “can of worms” was opened – has been known about the collectivists for longer than I’ve been involved with the subject, being a relative “new comer” to the topic 20 years ago. As others have pointed out, the people who open such a convention, even with the purest of intent, will not maintain control of this thing once it is set in motion. It will be made into a juggernaut, a berserker, that will destroy EVERYTHING and will force an IMMEDIATE armed conflict. That is the intent of Soros, Wolfpac and every other collectivist oligarchy that intends to extract “order from chaos”. I have to believe that many of the proponents here are fully aware of that, too, because that is the name of the game, the “infiltration and hijacking” “game”. I say that because they are asking me to believe that the people currently in power will be more faithful to the NEW Constitution, just because we put new verbiage in it. So, say we put in only that which is actually in line with our founders’ intent. All well and good. Will the kakistocracy then obey the constitution because we said, “This is even MORE Constitutional now because we put in more of the founders’ intent!”? That argument immediately reveals the lie. The kakistocracy WILL NOT obey any of the founders’ intent, clarified, amended or otherwise. That by itself reveals the REAL intent of an Article V convention. No one could possibly BELIEVE that the denizens of the District of Criminals will be more faithful to a re-written Supreme Law of the Land – unless there was something in it which further consolidates power to themselves. They have proven it over and over and over again. The proponents arguments just do not stand up to reality. They don’t even pass the “smell” test.

    3. Don Sipe…this is exactly the argument the CoS proponents want you to believe. Th 10th Amendment and nullification of bad federal law is the answer to the problem, not re-writing the constitution. Return to the original intent, and adherence to, the constitution and Bill of Rights is the solution. Do some research and read “The New States Constitution” written by Rockefeller-sponsored Rexford Guy Tugwell if you want to see what the globalists have in mind for you.

      1. Mr B,

        I agree that Amendment X and nullification can be powerful tools to resist Federal Government overreach. But, how will they do this en bloc? Is there a national group to coordinate such action? If so, what is its mission? What is the timeline? If it doesn’t exist, then it is only a dream.

        You employ the scary term, “re-writing,” to support your case, but don’t recognize that it really undermines your argument. Since you consider amending to be “re-writing,” shall we simply ignore or delete the current 27 Amendments? By your definition, they have all “re-written” the Constitution. I guess that means you want to say “good-bye” to the Bill of Rights?

        As you continue, you then support the “re-written” Constitution and Bill of Rights. Which one is it that you really support? Is it the original document, original intent, the partial document (with some of Article V), or some of the “re-written” document (including the Bill of Rights)? And finally, your solution is to “return” and “adhere,” but just to the parts you like. How will we do that effectively as a nation? When will it occur? Who’s leading the effort? It gets very confusing.

        David Dietrich

        1. Anytime you add or subtract an amendment, the Constitution is rewritten. That is not a valid argument in your favor.
          The point is, the Article V convention gives the left the vehicle they need to throw out the entire document.

    4. Don what makes you think they would abide by a changed Constitution? They totally ignore the one we have now. I guarantee Soros and Bloomberg would have big bucks behind any COS and we would be forced to fight if they even laid a finger on any of our rights. We need to demand that our current Constitution be enforced because I can assure you, you would be shut down and your voice silenced during any convention.

  4. Only those who have no other answers for our out of control government would be requesting, no demanding an Article V convention. We already can not trust these political hacks to keep their oath of office, but now these geniuses of the conservative persuasion, are stumbling all over themselves, are telling each of us to call those we can not already trust, to make changes to a pretty darn good document.
    Who knows what this opportunistic format would produce or be created when all the dust settles? I for one, am not willing to put America’s Future into the hands of such incompetent folks as those in whom have created this mess, in the first place!
    The brilliant framers of our constitution took great strides and painstaking months of consideration of each and every word presented for ratification, and because we’ve come to a point where it seems no answers can be found to stop our out of control government, we are more than willing to let those that play with political matches to add, remove, or change amendments? …. Total Insanity!..
    If the brilliant collective minds of today would gather themselves in a room to seek alternative measures, beyond this foolish Article V crap, maybe they could learn something the founder’s left us as of warnings, Of What Not To Do!
    “Look It Up Folks, It’s Not That Hard To Find!!!!”

  5. This article absolutely nails down why a Constitutional Convention convened at this time in our nations life would or could be devastating to its original intent. Thanks Jay.

  6. our constitution is the best the world has ever seen, we took an oath to protect it, so lets do just that, stand strong people we can do this, no con con, god bless the USA !

  7. I do oppose the CoS. I believe it would be a nightmare for the American People if the Powers-to-be get a chance to amend the US Constitution. The Constitution would not be made stronger but will be made weaker I suspect. The current administration and previous administrations and congresses haphazardly followed the US Constitution in my judgment and there is no reason to suspect they will change in the future. If you want to judge a persons worth and character, study their actions and conduct–that says it all. Our federal government has become very big and will protect itself at all costs in the future.

  8. Excellent, well written article, thank you.

    As of January 31, this year, 30 states have introduced one or more Article V convention applications. My state, Arizona , has four separate actions on the legislative books (HCR 2003 has already passed the house and I do intend on researching the Senate schedule soon).

    In the words of another writer:”In short, the Article V convention proponents are not intending to support and defend the constitution. They’ve given up on ever enforcing it.” Let us not follow them.

  9. The success of a Convention of States requires two things: The states all acting together to call for and control the Convention; and, We the People standing up for America through a powerful grassroots movement — both are doable. The Convention of States is the constitutional, lawful, non-violent way for reigning in an out-of-control federal government — a gift from the founding fathers! What alternative does Oathkeepers suggest–armed conflict? Oathkeepers.was founded to protect and defend the Constitution; Article V is the Constitution!

    1. Steve, you are living in a fantasy. In the real world, the states will have very little control over the convention.

      For example:
      “Congress has not, in general, embraced the theory that its role is purely ministerial or clerical, and that is work is done once a convention has been called. On the contrary, it has traditionally asserted broad and substantive authority over the full range of the Article V Convention’s procedural and institutional aspects from start to finish.” – Congressional Research Service report #R42589, p.18

      Michael Farris and Robert Natelson (of Convention of States) seem certain that this issue will see its day in the Supreme Court, and are counting on the courts siding with them.

      However, such a ruling would be a reversal of previous rulings, such as Dillon vs. Gloss (1921)
      “As a rule, the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require, and Article V is no exception to the rule.”

      In the real world, the history of Congress and the courts gives me no reasonable expectation that the states will be able to control a convention.

      1. Exactly right, RBrown. Nor would any “new” verbiage be more faithfully followed by our crony corporatist “representatives” than the existing Constitution – unless there was something in it which they wanted and they have already revealed that they are not interested in a de-evolution of power back to the states or to We The People.

  10. This is idiotic. This is a case of people publishing articles that have NO IDEA what is actually going on. The convention of states is passed in each STATE and is LIMITED IN SCOPE to ONLY WHAT EACH STATE AGREES TO. I cant believe an organization like OK would publish something so ignorant especially about a constitutional issue. I am going to take the oathkeepers sticker off my truck now. You lost me.

    1. I agree Chris. This is absurd. Fear and loathing for the Constitution at OathKeepers…

    2. Perhaps a shift in perspective may help you see why any political move proposing the power to alter the Constitution at this time in our history would be un-necessary, on the one hand, and outright dangerous on the other. The States have the sovereign power of interposition, for the States extended the initial authorization for the Constitution and the government which came out of that Constitution. The States extended the sovereignty of their respective people to create the compact. You and I have the authority over our State governments and by extension over our General government of the union. I think you will see that clearly if you read this:

      https://oathkeepers.org/the-clue-in-the-two-letter-word/

      In fact, I have two reading assignments for you. After reading the one linked above, please read this one also, and then return here and let me know if you think any State should want anything to do with altering the Constitution at this time. Friend, Oath Keepers does uphold the Constitution, which calls for a quota of like-willed States, which has not been reached yet, so we are not opposing the States’ right to do this, we are questioning the timing. Go ahead and read this article and see if you want to let anyone tinker with that document right now…

      https://oathkeepers.org/technocracy-rising-patrick-wood-on-caravan-to-midnight/

      You see, our problem is not government — it’s who owns it at present moment, which ain’t “We The People”. There are much better ways, which are also granted us by that same Constitution — rightful and lawful remedies to Federal corruption and treason, both of which are rife right now in Washington D.C.
      I will be glad to have this conversation with you, but would ask that you read the two articles I’ve linked. I wrote them, and would like to introduce them into this discussion, for by them I can illustrate how you may have fallen victim to someone’s intentional deception.

      Thank you,
      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor

      1. Elias, with all due respect, I think OK has really missed the mark on this. Sovereignty only works when people vote, which they do not, presumably because people see it as futile because the same creeps stay in office no matter how they vote. Individual sovereignty *cannot* exist unless people vote.
        All those technocracy evils you list, well, *nothing* will be done about them as long as the old guard stays in power. And they will stay in power because nobody will vote them out. Period.
        If you want to create real change that will limit the power of government then the Article V convention of states is the only way to do it. And, further more, now is the *only* time to do this. If we wait the opportunity may be lost forever. It really surprises me that OK doesn’t get this. How can OK simultaneously preach the constitution to the people and then, when the people use it to create change tell them, “No, that’s not what I meant, wait just a minute”. It is hypocritical.
        Instead of condemning an Article V conventions Oath Keepers should be participating in it to ensure it stays within the limited scope of the application. Let me say that again . . . OK should be participating in the Article V convention to ensure it stays within the limited scope of the application instead of condemning it.

        1. “Sovereignty only works when people vote,… presumably because people see it as futile because the same creeps stay in office no matter how they vote. Individual sovereignty *cannot* exist unless people vote.”

          That would be true IF the vote was honest. Currently it is not. Election Fraud is what we get from the “candidates” we get to choose from, to the actual vote itself.

          I am a voter, and I can tell you that my vote is NOT counted. We took a few hundred of us and voted an agreed upon way on a specific item so that we could verify if our votes matter. Guess what, there was LESS then 100 votes for that item.

          When our votes, our voice is silenced as it is now, it is time to reorganize the Militia of the several states because we the people are currently the ONLY Ones we can trust our liberty, our nation to regarding its, the states (borders anyone), our lives, our US Constitution and each state Constitution to.

          It is also ONLY the Militias that is constitutionally required to be used by the federal and state governments, while “standing (permanent) military, and governmental professional law enforcement is FORBIDDEN TO THEM.

          Both the states and the federal government is REQUIRED by the highest law of this land to use the Militias.

          Until we get the domestic enemies, the traitors, and the bought and sold out of our states how can we trust them with our nation itself, our legitimate government?

          Show me ONE (1) state that is ENFORCING the US Constitution and that state’s Constitution. One is all I ask of you. Let me know when you find it please. I will have to verify it for myself because at this time of our lives there is NOT one that I have found.

          Admittedly I am only on the 34th state Constitution, and more then 34 readings of the US Constitution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist, I peruse quotes almost daily from the founders and framers.

          I am fighting for a Militia in my state. Are you? Do you write and call your state representatives and list what crimes they have committed? Starting with felony charges for breaking the Oaths.

          You have many safer routes to bring us back under the US Constitution – read it.

          Oh, regarding the “ensure it stays within the limited scope of the application”.

          Where in the US Constitution does it say that we can put LIMITS on those we send to an Article 5 Convention? There are no limits unless there are those who actually represent the people going there, and at this time we might have like 5 within the complete USA.

    3. really whats ignorant is they can not follow that limitation. If they decided to just draft a new constitution and have someting put in their that they cant be prosecuted for breaking the limitation. You lost it. It very well can happen. You are seeing it with horse blinders on and think that corruption couldnt reach the COS. It can. Again, once those doors close thats it. you have absolutely NO CONTROL what goes on in that room. All it takes is a man like SOROS to dump money to get what the democrats want.

      1. Willvas,

        Your argument doesn’t hold water. You only have to read Article V to understand the strict limitations of an Amendment Convention. I suppose, though, taking your perspective, the entire ratified Constitution has already been overcome by events. We may as well all just give up and move to France.

        David Dietrich

    4. I concur, as well. We should be supporting this rather than letting irrational conspiracy theories keep us from making real change. I would expect an article like this from a lobbying group who wants to keep the corrupt politician they paid millions.

  11. Let’s look at the source of this article, the John Birch Society. They fear just about anything. They have virtually no one on their side of any note, nor do they have numbers. With their estimated membership, they are about 0.003 % of the population.
    And they are so wrong on this subject. They also rejected Eisenhower (hey Oathkeepers, take NOTE), Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Milton Freidman, Sarah Palin, Cruz, Rand Paul, and many many others who do NOT reject Article V.
    And yet, their founding chairman Welch and the next, Larry McDonald, did NOT reject it and indeed tried to use it and a Convention of States for the “Liberty Amendment”.
    Google that and McDonald and find that it was IN the Congressional record thus.
    However, it is a proven fact you attract more attention with fear than courage and bravery. But the sky is NOT falling with Article V of the Constitution.

    JBS out of Step with their founder Welch on Article V & Cos Project pic.twitter.com/B9HzUbqcsq

    1. So, for you it’s about the numbers, how popular JBS happens to be. So, you are all for democracy, right? Yes?

      The John Birch Society is the most well-informed organization on anything Constitutional and American, including what form of government our founders gave us. Please, tell me what form that is.

      Since you are so keen on their membership numbers and make the point that they are in a vast minority, are you then saying that you favor mob rule, the tyranny of the masses, that the majority shall prevail despite the law, that the law may be altered to suit the whims of the majority?

      I personally believe that as a rule, the majority is WRONG. The reason for that is this: true intelligence is rare and mediocrity common – which is the very reason for a body of law to rule in place of lesser men. According to James Ostrowski: Democracy is nothing more than the numerous and their manipulators bullying the less numerous. It is an elaborate and deceptive rationalization for the strong in numbers to impose their will on the electorally weak by means of centralized state coercion …

      Democracy in its purest form is best illustrated by the robbery of a helpless little old lady by a gang of thugs. It must be okay: The gang “majority” out-voted the woman. So, are you one of those who believe this nation was founded as a “democracy” where majorities should prevail? Or are you one of those who believe that “democracy” and “Constitutional Republic” are the same, just synonyms for the same thing? You know, George Soros is a big advocate of democracy… Interestingly, VI Lenin said that “democracy is the most direct route to communism”. If you understood that “democracy” and “Constitutional Republic” are not synonymous and that “democracy” and “oligarchical collectivism” ARE, I suspect we’d not be talking about the “popularity” of JBS, but would rather be discussing the merits of their research.

  12. @ Don Sipe,

    You are misinformed if you believe the corrupt and treasonous people “serving” in our governments today would put forth anything beneficial to the people. They would more likely completely do away with the US Constitution.

    It is REALLY important that everyone remember (or familiarize oneself) that according to our history of Article V-style conventions – absolutely regardless of any state or congressional legislation requiring them to consider only one amendment the delegates who are *”elected” to the convention would possess unlimited, though not unprecedented, power to propose any and all revisions to the existing Constitution, based on the inherent right of the People in convention to alter or revise their government.”

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/19775-texas-gop-leadership-passes-anti-con-con-resolution
    The Texas GOP’s State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) approved an anti-constitutional convention resolution at their December meeting. The resolution said in part:

    WHEREAS, Any convention called under the authority of Article V of the U.S. Constitution to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution will be a “Constitutional Convention” regardless of any title or labels attached to it, such as Constitutional Convention, Con-Con, Compact for America, Convention of the States, or any other label;

    The resolution went on to say:

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we call upon the 84th Legislature to rescind any and all existing “calls for a Constitutional Convention”; This resolution addressed the contradictory planks that are currently in the 2014 State Republican Party Platform. The current party platform says:

    Constitutional Convention — We strongly oppose any constitutional convention to rewrite the United States Constitution. We encourage the Texas Legislature to rescind its 1977 call for such a convention. We call upon other states to rescind their votes for such a convention.

    Article V Convention — Under no circumstances shall the Bill of Rights, the first 10 constitutional amendments, be changed in any manner. We urge the Texas State Legislators to take the lead in calling for an Article V Amending Convention of States, for the specific purpose of reigning in the power of the federal government. Any proposed amendments must be ratified by ¾ of the states to take effect.” (End quote)

    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/
    Delegates to an Article V Convention Can’t be Controlled by State Laws!
    Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) sets forth our long forgotten Founding Principles that:

    ♦ All men are created equal.

    ♦ Rights come from God.

    ♦ People create governments to secure God-given rights. The first three words of our Constitution throw off the European model where political power originates with the State; and establish the new Principle that WE THE PEOPLE are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22, last sentence).

    ♦ When a government seeks to take away our God given rights, we have the right to alter, abolish, or throw off that Form of government.

    These are the Principles which justified our Revolution against a King.

    These are also the Principles which permit us today to throw off our Form of government by discarding our existing Constitution and replacing it with another one. This is why the language at Article V of our Constitution, which authorizes Congress to call a convention “for proposing amendments”, does not restrict Delegates to merely “proposing amendments”: Delegates are invested with that inherent pre-existing sovereign right, recognized in our Declaration, to abolish our existing Form of government (our Constitution) and propose a new Constitution.

    This has happened once before in our Country. I’ll show you.

    The Federal Convention of 1787: Federal and State Instructions to Delegates

    Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution), the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74) to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia:

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

    The Continental Congress authorized each of the then 13 States to appoint Delegates to the convention. Twelve of the States 1 made laws respecting the appointment of Delegates and issuing instructions to Delegates. Ten States instructed their Delegates to propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation; and only two (North Carolina and New Hampshire) gave instructions which arguably permitted their Delegates to do more than propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation. 2

    But the Delegates ignored the federal and State limitations and wrote a new Constitution (the one we have now is our second Constitution). Because of this inherent authority of Delegates, it is impossible to stop it from happening at a convention today (which will surely result in a third Constitution).

    The Delegates to the 1787 convention also instituted an easier mode of ratification. Whereas Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required approval of all of the then 13 States before an amendment could be ratified; Article VII of the new Constitution provided that only 9 States were required for ratification of the new Constitution.

    Why is an Article V Convention Dangerous? If we have a convention today, there is nothing to stop Delegates from proposing a third Constitution with its own new method of ratification.

    New Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention. Here are three:

    ♦ Fifty years ago, the Ford & Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. It is ratified by a referendum called by the President [Art 12, Sec. 1]. If we have a convention, and Delegates propose the Newstates Constitution, it doesn’t go to the States for ratification – it goes directly to the President to call a Referendum. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Read the Newstates Constitution and tremble for your country.

    ♦ The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.

    ♦ The Constitution 2020 movement is funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law professors and Marxist groups all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder. They want a Marxist Constitution and they want it in place by the year 2020. It further appears that Soros is funding much of the current push for an Article V convention.
    James Madison writes in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that an Article V Convention would give “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country. In Federalist No. 49, he shows that the convention method is NOT GOOD to correct breaches of the federal constitution because the People aren’t philosophers – they follow what influential people tell them! And the very legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention so they could control the outcome.

    ♦ Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his Sep. 14, 1986 article in The Miami Herald, that at the convention of 1787, the delegates ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, wrote a new Constitution. He warns that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda [of the convention] would almost certainly be unenforceable.”

    ♦ Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger warns in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly that “there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention”; “After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda”; and “A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…”

    Convention supporters say we don’t have to worry about any of the above because States can make laws controlling their Delegates.

    Really? James Madison, Father of our Constitution and a consistent opponent of the convention method of proposing amendments, didn’t know that. Two US Supreme Court Justices didn’t know that. They said there is no effective way to control the Delegates.

    But in case you are uncertain as to who is telling you the Truth – and who isn’t – I will show you how easily State laws which pretend to control Delegates can be circumvented.

    Let’s use House Bill 148, recently filed in the New Hampshire Legislature, to illustrate this:

    Section 20-C:2 I. of the New Hampshire bill says:

    “No delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention shall have the authority to allow consideration, consider, or approve an unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.” [italics mine]

    Section 20-C:1 V. of the bill defines “unauthorized amendment” as:

    “any amendment outside the scope permitted by the Article V petition passed by the general court of New Hampshire”.

    What is wrong with this?

    ♦ It doesn’t prohibit New Hampshire Delegates from proposing or approving a new Constitution.

    ♦ Article V of the US Constitution provides that Amendments will be proposed at the convention. Any state laws contrary to Article V must fall under the supremacy clause at Article VI, US Constitution.

    ♦ New Hampshire Delegates can’t restrict Delegates from other States.

    ♦ It ignores the inherent sovereign authority of Delegates to throw off both their State governments and the federal government by proposing a new constitution with whatever new mode of ratification they want. Remember! Under the proposed Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

    ♦ And if the States already know what amendments they want, they should tell their State congressional delegations to propose them in Congress. This is the method James Madison always advised.

    Section 20-C:2 II. of the New Hampshire bill says:

    “Any vote taken by a delegate from New Hampshire at the Article V convention in violation of paragraph I of this section shall be null and void. Any delegate making this vote shall be immediately disqualified from serving as a delegate to the Article V convention.”

    What is wrong with this?

    ♦ What if the Delegates vote to keep their proceedings secret? At the federal convention on May 29, 1787, our Framers made rules restricting publications of their proceedings.

    ♦ What if the Delegates vote by secret ballot? As long as some vote “for” and others vote “against” every proposition, there is no way to tell who did what.

    Section 20-C:2 III. of the New Hampshire bill says:

    “Every delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention called for by the Article V petition shall be required to take the following oath:”

    “I do solemnly swear or affirm that to the best of my abilities, I will, as a delegate to the Article V convention, uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state of New Hampshire. I will accept and will act according to the limits of the authority as a delegate granted to me by New Hampshire law, and I will not vote to consider or approve any unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. I understand and accept any penalties that may be imposed on me by New Hampshire law for violating this oath.” [boldface mine]

    Does one need to comment on the efficacy of Oaths of Office in our degenerate times? Article II, §1, last clause, of our Constitution requires the President to take an Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”; and Article VI, last clause, requires everyone in the federal and State governments to take an oath to obey the Constitution.

    Who today honors his Oath of Office?

    Section 20-C:2 IV. of the New Hampshire bill says:

    “Any delegate who violates the oath contained in paragraph III of this section shall be subject to the maximum criminal penalty under RSA 641:2.”

    Any criminal defense attorney worth her salt can figure out how to get around this one:

    ♦ As shown above, if the proceedings of the convention are kept secret, or Delegates vote by secret ballot, one would never know if any one Delegate violated his oath. Defense counsel would get any attempted criminal prosecution of any particular Delegate dismissed at a pretrial hearing.

    ♦ Congress can pass a law granting immunity from prosecution to the Delegates.

    ♦ The Delegates can insert a clause in the new constitution granting themselves immunity from prosecution.

    ♦ If the new constitution abolishes the States, as does the Newstates Constitution, there is no State left to prosecute Delegates.

    ♦ The local prosecutor is the one who decides whether he will prosecute any criminal offense under his jurisdiction. Politics are a deciding factor in deciding whether to prosecute. Remember Eric Holder refused to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a polling place?

    Do you see? James Madison, Justice Arthur Goldberg, and Justice Warren Burger were right: It is impossible to restrict the Delegates. (End a very long quote, but a very correct one if one bothers to do the research to back up all the facts stated here, and those are not all of the facts why it would be a bad idea. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/)

    Then you have Obama’s admitted many times openly where they have had people rewriting the US Constitution except they call it “repairing” its many errors.

    ” there are numerous Soros-funded groups that are busy seeking to use an Article V convention to change the U.S. Constitution in pursuit of anti-liberty goals. “Within the ranks of those clamoring for an Article V convention are found numerous extremely radical, progressive, and socialist organizations that otherwise would have little in common with the conservatives fighting on the same side,” wrote constitutional attorney Joe Wolverton in an article last year about the fact that an array of Socialist and Soros-funded groups are also working for a Con-Con.

    A massive coalition known as “Move to Amend,” which seeks to change the Constitution to undermine the right to free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment, reads like a who’s who of far-left groups funded by George Soros. The leftist group Wolf-PAC also boasts on its website that it is working to have states call for a Con-Con, using the Soros-funded show The Young Turks to promote its efforts to the American people.”

    Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention
    Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17402-socialists-and-soros-fight-for-article-v-convention

    http://www.wolf-pac.com/
    On its website, Wolf-Pac pushes for an Article V “convention of the states” as the best way to accomplish its “ultimate goal:”

    To restore true democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country.

    In order to persuade Americans to join its cause, Wolf-Pac will: “… inform the public by running television commercials, radio ads, social media, internet ads, and using the media platform of the largest online news show in the world, The Young Turks.

    The Young Turks? Most constitutionalists (and I imagine most fans of Mark Levin) don’t spend much time during the day watching the Young Turks, the YouTube-based news and entertainment channel that dubs itself the “world’s largest online news network.”

    As unfamiliar as they may be with the Young Turks, it seems certain conservatives pushing for a con-con are even more unfamiliar with who pays the bills at this online purveyor of progressive ideology: George Soros (shown). Dan Gainor reports:

    In fact, Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the United States. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. That organization ‘is a network of the country’s leading, progressive, independent media outlets.’ The list is predictable — everything from Alternet to the Young Turks.”

    “http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17402-socialists-and-soros-fight-for-article-v-convention
    These good people would be wise to take a look at this heavily abbreviated roster of their radical fellow travelers in the con-con movement, each of which is a registered “founding member” of the “Move to Amend” coalition.

    Alliance for Democracy
    Center for Media and Democracy
    Code Pink
    Independent Progressive Politics Network
    Progressive Democrats of America
    Sierra Club
    Vermont for Single Payer

    Mind you, hundreds more groups “committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy” are gathered under this umbrella.”

    This is just another way for the corrupt and treasonous “serving within our government to destroy our nation, take away our liberty, and make us part of the NWO and under THIER rule lawfully.

    1. Publius Huldah has it right, as do many others that know our history.
      The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was a document signed amongst the thirteen original colonies that established the United States of America as a confederal republic of federated states and served as its first constitution. Its drafting by a committee appointed by the Second Continental Congress began on July 12, 1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal ratification by all thirteen states was completed in early 1781.

      Even when not yet ratified, the Articles provided domestic and international legitimacy for the Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with Europe and deal with territorial issues and Native American relations. Nevertheless, the weakness of the government created by the Articles became a matter of concern for key nationalists. On March 4, 1789, the general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the United States Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a true chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.
      And therein lies the problem. An Article V convention cannot be restricted as it allows for the participating delegates to declare existing laws, articles, and amendments to be null and void in the process of completely rewriting an entirely new document, as those delegates would be the representatives of the people, as it is the people that hold authoritative power over government by contract, commonly known as the US Constitution.
      Read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

      1. Please show me one grain of evidence to where the Articles of Confederation was lawfully and officially replaced by Constitution for the united States of America. I’m not talking about alleged Crown agent’s such as Alexander Hamilton spewing such, I’m talking about congressional records, Federalists or Anti-Federalists papers, or archives.

        Section one of the US Code Book even specifies that all four organic laws are applicable to the laws of the US.

  13. I disagree with the writer of this article opposing a Convention to propose amendments to the US Constitution.

    Think about it, please. You’re saying our Constitution in this instance, which you would praise (I hope) in every other detail of it, is bad. Are you nuts or what?

    Our constitution has been amended 27 times. The first 10 (the bill of rights) before the Constitution was actually fully ratified. The last 17 using Article V of the Constitution, but using the US Congressional authority to do so. The states of these Unites States have similar authority under Article V, but you would deny the States, the states which set the Constitution in place to start with the not alter the same document they originally drafted. What kind of distortion is this.

    I’m a Life Member of Oath Keepers. This has me pissed and I’m not gonna stand for it.

    I demand a retraction!

    1. Deny the states? The only power states have is to put in for the convention.
      Article V goes on to say that CONGRESS WILL DECIDE ON THE MODE OF RATIFICATION. In other words, once the convention got going….states could be left completely out of the process.

  14. I suppose there’s a remote possibility that the Convention could be hijacked by the Progressive Left and their crony capitalists, but I don’t think it likely. Remember that each state has only one vote in a Constitutional Convention, be it California with 30 million people or Alaska with only a half-million; this makes it impossible for the convention to be run away with by the liberals, who inhabit only a few states on the coasts, There are far more red states than blue, and I would hope that people in swing states would realize that this is the best chance to reclaim our freedom. Congress has no part in this: a Convention of States totally circumvents Congress. Mark Levin, in “The Liberty Amendments”, which should be read by everyone, has proposed ten Constitutional Amendments that, if enacted, would restore America to our Founders’ vision. If only two, Term Limits and Balanced Budget, were passed, it would make a huge difference in the way our country is governed.
    It is worth the gamble, because the current situation, in which the President and Congress totally ignore the limits placed upon them by the Constitution, is intolerable. If you don’t gamble, you can’t win. The Founders took a huge gamble with the Declaration and the Revolution, and they won. We must honor their courage with our own. .

    1. It is HIGHLY likely it will be hijacked: “On its website, Wolf-Pac pushes for an Article V “convention of the states” as the best way to accomplish its “ultimate goal:”

      To restore true democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country.

      In order to persuade Americans to join its cause, Wolf-Pac will:

      inform the public by running television commercials, radio ads, social media, internet ads, and using the media platform of the largest online news show in the world, The Young Turks.

      http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17402-socialists-and-soros-fight-for-article-v-convention

  15. The Convention of States organization assures us that a convention can be limited, but their application gives the convention virtually unlimited power.

    For example, they propose to “impose fiscal restraints” on the federal government. But where is the requirement that those new spending levels be lower than current spending? Those limits could just as easily be set higher, could they not?

    They also propose to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal government”. The Constitution already does this. So this is proposing to replace the current limits with new ones. Would those new limits be higher or lower than they are now? That is not defined.

    The COS application gives a blank check to the Convention, to establish new levels of power, jurisdiction, and spending. But don’t worry, we can count on the delegates to resist the temptation of this blank check, and the bribes from the thousands of special interest groups. Can’t we?

  16. Oathkeepers is suppose to be about keeping our oath to our constitution, Article V (convention of states) is the only tool in our constitution given to us by George Mason to reign in an out of control federal government.

    If you take an oath to the constitution but are AFRAID to use that very constitution to make changes and thus save our republic than methinks your oath may be false!

    Death before slavery!

    1. Comrade X,
      Please show me one quote from one of the framers of the Constitution, declaring the Article V convention is for reining in an out of control government. This is the most oft repeated, unsubstantiated claim I have ever seen.

      They only said it was for remedying errors. Yet, it is not errors in the Constitution that are causing our problems.

      1. Mr Brown,

        Whether or not the Framers gave us the Article V Convention to “rein in an out-of-control government” is irrelevant. It happens to be a Constitutional tool for doing just that. In addition, there is a dedicated group of patriots who are effectively working toward that end. Please tell us your alternate solution, timeline, and organization for accomplishing the same end.

        David Dietrich

      2. “By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” Federalist 85

        Hope this helps.

        Death before slavery!

    2. Wow, you are so wrong in that surmise. Have you even read the US Constitution? The Preamble to the US Constitution and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights?

      Let me show you some more tools given to the US people.

      Lets start with that the federal and state governments were FORBIDDEN to create a standing (permanent) military, and FORBIDDEN to create law enforcement. They are REQUIRED to use the Militias.

      Who are the Militia? They are you and me, “we the people”.

      Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers 28: “The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.”

      George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

      Our government, the Constitution of the United States of America
      Second Amendment:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

      The Basics of “Who” (are the Militia):

      All able-bodied Americans plus those lawfully allowed to be here – excluding “public servants” – from age 18 through age 60 are the Militia of the several states. The Militia equals “We the People of the USA” because each state’s Militia is made of its lawful citizens excluding “representatives”, and the state’s can work together as needed for defense and to enforce the US Constitution or each state’s Constitution.

      The Preamble to the US Constitution; starts with:
      “We the People of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution”,

      By those words it is saying that “We the People” are the source of any and all legal status of the state and federal governments. “We” created them for specific purposes, and it was NOT to destroy our lives, control us, spy on us, track us, or murder us. Basically all public officials – state and federal representatives, state and federal law enforcement, state and federal judges, the multitude of state and federal bureaucracies – are called “public servants” for a reason – they are literally our hirelings, and many are “temporary workers” or “seasonal” – long seasons I admit.

      The US Constitution and all that is “in Pursuance thereof” it, as the supreme (highest) law of this land in the areas where it was given jurisdiction says that “We” (as the Militia of the several states) are personally responsible for maintaining and protecting the US Constitution, each state’s Constitution, and seeing to their enforcement against ALL foes – domestic and foreign. “We” are the ones responsible for enforcing the laws of this land, and are charged with it’s defense plus the defense of our homes, neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, and country.
      It says it here within the Constitution of the United States of America:

      US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

      This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.

      Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.”

      This clause is very straightforward. The militia of each state is taxed with the defense of the USA and her people, not just with the defense of their state; and they are to be armed with weapons that can repel any invasions bearing modern weapons of war. Congress is required to provide those military grade weapons for the militias in Clause 16.

      Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

      Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural, explained that: “a well-disciplined militia” is “our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them” and also a guarantee of “the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense.”

      Then there is the Grand Jury, a real one – not a government controlled one.

      “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

      “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)

      “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

      “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

      “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

      “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

      “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

      Then there is the “Good Behaviour” requirement of all judges – state and federal.

      What does the US Constitution say all judges, both state and federal, must do to be allowed to stay in a judicial position, what shows that they are using “Good Behaviour”? We already know that they are lawfully required to take and keep 2 Oaths, or a combined Oath, or in the case of some judges – the 2 Oaths/combined Oath and a state Oath. So when are judges not doing the duty assigned to them in a lawful manner? The US Constitution, Article III Section 1 sets the requirement for “Good Behaviour”:

      The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

      Which is supported by different writings of the framers such as:

      James Madison, Federalist 39, 250 – 53: “According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.”

      Papers of John Adams: “The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people and every blessing of society, depends so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that. The Judges therefore should always be men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependant upon any man or body of men. To these ends they should hold estates for life in their offices, or in other words their commissions should be during good behaviour, and their salaries ascertained and established by law. For misbehaviour the grand inquest of the Colony, the House of Representatives, should impeach them before the Governor and Council, where they should have time and opportunity to make their defence, but if convicted should be removed from their offices, and subjected to such other punishment as shall be thought proper.”

      Hope that helps, because without enforcement nothing will actually be done. Though I believe at this time with the level of corruptness serving within our governments that an Article 5 might be dangerous to our nation.

      Why don’t we start with the enforcement part first, since whatever happens in an Article 5, it still will need to be enforced.

  17. This is the absolute reason why there should not bean Article V Convention. Do not allow the political oligarchy play folks they schooled!

    14th Amendment Citizenship: Citizen = SLAVE

    Prior to the alleged ratification of the 14th Amendment, there was no legal definition of a “citizen of the United States”, as everyone had primary citizenship in one of the several states. The Constitution referred to the sovereign state citizen, and no one else. Those who went to Washington, D.C. or outside the several states were commonly called “citizens of the United States.” In the Constitution for the United States, the term was used to identify state citizens who were eligible under the suffrage laws to hold office, and they were required under the Constitution to have primary allegiance to one of the several states.

    http://youtu.be/y4xV4MTnCdc

  18. As a Life Member of Oath Keepers, I am very disappointed and concerned for this organization that you do not support our Constitutional Right of Article V, Convention of States! We find ourselves at a crossroads in which direction this country is going to go, left or right! I for one chose the right, and the right thing to do is get our country back on track WITH the Constitution!

  19. This article, although incomplete, certainly nails it!! Nails what? Pres Jackson said, Lincoln mouthed it, this nation is too strong for a foreign enemy to conquer it- EXCEPT BY THE ENEMY WITHIN! Think about it….this nation has long been assailed by those who simply wish to usher us to the dustbin of history….some may think I’m overstating reality, but read karl marx’s 10 planks of his commie platform & ask why are these ALL in effect w/in our shores? Why is the most tolerant nation in history being assailed as intolerant (& much worse)? Do we stand for slaughtering those we can’t hear scream in agony (aka abortion)? Do we wish to sanctify child molesters? Are not msm mavens, self billed conservatives, mixing in fiction w/fact for the express purpose of obfuscating conservatism to weaken, via principle dilution, the conservative platform? Is there not a red bastion on our shores, which American tax dollars support & msm reveres as near holy? Can 1 write specific names w/o reprisal via demagogary & libel lawsuits? You know those answers! We simply cannot leave the 1 foundation left in the hands of the self serving ‘plants’ who would destroy us & foist a soviet America on us & our progeny! Happy Easter- He is risen & may He Bless America!

    1. Exactly on target, Bobbo. Shall we expect the leadership who currently ignores our Constitution to obey the “new” one – unless it advances their current position, enhances their current state of crony corporatism? Can the proponents of a CoS actually BELIEVE that this will take place, that by merely proclaiming “this is even MORE Constitutional because we have clarified the founders’ intent!” that the kakistocracy in the District of Criminals will bend to the will of We The People once we’ve re-written the Constitution? Do the proponents of A5 actually expect US to believe that they can maintain control of such a convention, that it will be amended for purely American purposes when George Soros and WolfPac are the most well-funded advocates of such a convention? (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17402-socialists-and-soros-fight-for-article-v-convention)? I don’t think so. Are we some kind of rubes that will believe that the best intentions will prevail in this political climate where we are already near civil war? (Wasn’t the Bundy Ranch situation close enough for y’all?) Are we that naive that we would believe our enemies would “play by the rules” in this? Really? Do the “rules” matter now?

      I submit that the Constitution is being ignored at this moment, that no new verbiage would reign in the rogue regime in place now – who already ignore the original Constitution – and that any such attempt is done FALSELY and with the purpose of evasion so that color of law (relative to our founders’ intent) may be substituted for real, legitimate law that restricts government while preserving liberty for We The People. The collectivist proponents of a CoS will use ANY argument to win this battle – as they are currently demonstrating, citing “majorities believe..” and so forth, thus revealing their support for “democracy”, the rule of man, rule by majority, mob rule, the tyranny of the masses while quoting NUMBERS which give supposed majorities “legitimacy” because of those numbers… They have revealed themselves and their advocacy for democracy over the Constitutional Rule of Law, knowing full well that people of their same belief system are waiting in the wings to dismantle our founders’ system of government, believing as they do in their superior wisdom over our founders’. Their true purpose is already known and we ignore that at the greatest cost imaginable.

      I don’t “buy” their arguments.

  20. Shouldn’t the people revolt to the fact that the TPTB do not and have not been complying with their contracts? Let’s start with the so called president. Do you all realize that no president including G. Washington has performed a lawful and subscribed Article VI oath of office to ‘THIS’ Constitution? No contract, no compliance!

    The so called president ‘shall’ nominate ‘JUDGES’ to the Supreme court, not ‘JUSTICES’! Article II, Section 2. People, it would take a lawful Article V amendment process to make such a blatant, in your face change. The result is the fact that the Supreme court is a total fraud and they have zero jurisdiction and each and every one of these tyrants should be arrested and brought up on criminal charges of fraud.

    Article III courts were not brought forward under the Judiciary Act of 1789.

    Why don’t the people demand that the so called president sign a proclamation abolishing the War Powers Act (WPA) of 1933 which would quash his current dictatorial power? It has become extremely clear to me that our progressive demise as a free people is mainly due to the status forced onto US citizens by the WPA which deems all US citizens as enemy belligerents occupying conquered territory under military martial rule (not to be confused with martial law). Abolishing the WPA would come a long way in the people regaining some of their liberty back however, this will never occur unless the people realize such and demand its repeal. I truly believe such a push by the people would foment a civil war because TPTB would never agree to relinquish such a stranglehold of control over their slaves and restricting their acquisitions of prize and booty.

    I suggest all to read the linked 39 page paper titled, The War Powers Act of 1933 and I promise you will be way ahead of the majority regarding the understanding of the current and total enslavement status of most people.

    http://www.hudok.info/files/5514/2682/5615/War_Powers_Act_of_1933_with_highlights.pdf

  21. If there is no law requiring a balanced budget, there certainly won’t be a balanced budget.

    Jay Stang, if you actually wrote this article, you must have a personal reason to fear a Constitutional change, or you have inadequate knowledge of the Amendment process–maybe both. A Convention of the States could propose the most outlandish Amendment, but it will still take 3/4 of the States (38) to formally approve the proposed Amendment before it becomes law–it’s called ratification. And then, if it turns out that the ratified amendment is a bad law, it can be repealed. Now please tell us the REAL reason for fearing an Amendment.

    The Oath Keeper organization should be embarrassed.

    1. They lied about the ratification of the 16th Amendment. Think it can’t happen again? If they re-write the entire document, they’ll make up the rules, new rules, as they go along anyway.

      The only way I’d agree to it would be with a militia contingent outside the front door to arrest any trash that threatened the Bill of rights or the separation of powers in any way. Our domestic blood enemies would love to saddle us with a parliament or something worse.

      Don’t understand my bad attitude? Start here: http://www.freekentucky.com/the-must-readwatch-page/

    2. Little Don,
      Don’t count on the ratification process to be a foolproof safeguard against bad amendments. The 16th and 17th Amendments cleared this hurdle, and have yet to be repealed. Yet they have done tremendous damage.

      But more concerning is the only precedent we have for amending conventions.

      The convention of 1787, which gave us the US Constitution, was also a convention for proposing amendments. It also had to submit its proposed amendments to the states for ratification. However, their requirement wasn’t a 3/4 majority. It was the legislature of all 13 states!

      That is not what happened.

      Read Article VII of the US Constitution. The convention wrote a NEW RATIFICATION PROCESS! They reduced it to just 9 out of 13 states (2/3), and they took the process out of the hands of the state legislatures, calling instead for special ratifying conventions in each state. They changed who ratifies, and how many.

      If the US Constitution itself is valid, it’s ratification set a rather shocking precedent; that amendments conventions can write their own ratification process.

      Based upon this, I can’t say with certainty, that the ratification process outlined in Article V, would remain intact. Liberals are already talking about using this precedent to change the ratification process to a simple majority vote of the people.

    3. The US Constitution does define how they may spend the money. But it is NOT enforced.

      Enforcement is the problem now, and if we are lucky and can find some HONEST not corrupted state representatives who would actually do as required by the people enforcement would still be the issue.

    4. @ Little Don, “If there is no law requiring a balanced budget, there certainly won’t be a balanced budget.”

      Actually the US Constitution does have many provisions within it saying exactly what those who serve within our governments may spend money on. Here is one that would save us literally trillions a year. All listed below has a cost. Most are denied to those who serve within our governments but they did, and are doing them anyway. Enforcement problem raises its ugly head again. Are you willing to start learning to be the enforcer as the US Constitution requires of YOU?

      Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

      Clause 12 specifies that there shall be no military beyond that of two years. The Militia of each state is charged with our nations defense here within the USA until and unless the congress has declared war and a “standing” military is raised:

      “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.

      The money that the congress has illegally spent beyond the lawfully allowed time of two years for the support of a “standing military” was/and still is a misappropriation of funds (misappropriation n. the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one’s own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official…), a felony, a crime against the American people.

      “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years” is really straightforward, and no “misunderstanding” of the words can be used as an excuse for disobeying that lawfully required duty. The members of congress can be, and should be, held personally responsible for that breach of trust. That is correct, they must pay back the funds used unlawfully out of their personal accounts.

      There can lawfully be no (NO!) standing army except in times of war, and ONLY the congress can lawfully declare war under the contract they get their duties and powers from.

      *War must be declared by congress in order to be a lawful war that our US military are used to fight in, it must be in defense of our nation ONLY which is why so many lies were used as excuses to get us into wars. Since they were not, and are not, lawfully declared wars, ALL who died on all sides make that mass murder, etc that those who serve within our government had a hand in and MUST be fully prosecuted for.

      War cannot lawfully be “declared” against a tactic such as the “war against terror” or the “war against drugs”; both are not wars and not even the congress can declare a war against a tactic.

      War defined: ‘Open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or nations’. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/war

      Read the US Constitution to discover more.

      By the way; This is REQUIRED of those who serve within our governments.

      George Washington: “It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. “

      John Quincy Adams: “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.”

      Alexander Hamilton: “Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence.”

      The Elastic” Clauses

      Article I, Section 8 giving Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare.”
      The clear legal meaning of the phrase which was borrowed from the Articles of Confederation, meant, and still means, a small subset of duties each individual state considered appropriate to delegate to a separate authority. Roger Sherman, early American lawyer and politician, and a Founding Father of the United States, moved to have the phrase added to the Constitution, clarifies this (modernly) misunderstood clause. so it could be connected with the clause for laying taxes and duties. Sherman wanted to make it very clear that taxes could only be collected for the enumerated powers, that the “objects of the Union” are “few”; including to list them as “defence against foreign danger,” defense “against internal disputes & a resort to force,” and “regulating foreign commerce & drawing revenue from it” as the specified powers of the general (federal) government. This is consistent with Madison’s words from The Federalist and other sources, and also was the conclusive understanding that the other representatives held in the Philadelphia Convention and the state conventions afterwards.

      Madison wrote regarding the General Welfare Clause’s plain meaning when objecting to a 1792 bill which called for subsidized fisheries. The General Welfare Clause was cited as justification to pass such a bill. Madison responded: “I, sir, have always conceived – I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and more material to observe that those who ratified the Constitution conceived –that this is not an indefinite Government, deriving its power from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a limited Government tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms.” He made it clear that the phrase reiterated that the specified powers were tied to “general terms.”

      James Madison in a letter written to a Virginia senator, Joseph Cabell, Madison made his views unambiguous: the interstate and foreign commerce clauses were not intended, nor construed, to vest in Congress equivalent powers when regulating domestic and foreign commerce: “I always foresaw difficulties might be started in relation to the interstate commerce power. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain it grew out of the abuse of the power of the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventative provision against injustice amongst the states themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged. And it will be safer to leave the power with this key to it, than to extend it all the qualities and incidental means belonging to the power over foreign commerce.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

      James Madison: “With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

      Daniel Webster: “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

      War

      James Madison: “The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature … the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”

      George Washington: “The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”

      James Madison: “In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

      James Madison: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

      James Madison: “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.”

      James Madison warned: “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

  22. The ultimate goal of government is to create within you a fear of others, from which only the government can protect you. A fear of a Convention of States is the ultimate example. Additionally, what Constitutional protection do you now have that is so secure that you fear it’s diminishment by such a convention? Remember, each state gets an equal vote in such a convention and most states are verifiably conservative.

  23. There is a GREAT DEAL of misguided and flat-out incorrect information in this article and your email blast about the proposed Article V Convention and the same can be said for many of the comments. First of all, what is being proposed is NOT a Constitutional Convention and eliminating or revising any and all elements of the Constitution is NOT the purpose of a Convention of States. The idea that it would result in a “run away” convention is totally false fear mongering motivated only be those who have much to gain by keeping things the way they are. Of course those with vested interests in the status quo are going to spread all kinds of lies and misinformation.

    Before you publish and disseminate this kind of uneducated opinion about the proposed Article V Convention of States, it would be wise for you to read all of the many counter-arguments to your statements. And, if you are truly interested in supporting what this group purports to have as it’s mission, then you should absolutely offer an unbiased study of the issue and NOT a rant and rave misinformed publication of a one-sided viewpoint.

    f you truly wanted your members to become informed about this issue, then spouting-off half baked opinions is not the way to accomplish that. Instead, why don’t you offer your members the alternative factual information from those who are leading this effort. Reading this information yourself might be a good place to start.

    Anyone who wants to learn the facts needs to go to this website and read what this movement is all about instead of just reading and listening to rumors, misinformation and fear mongering. Check it out below and if you have any courage at all, then post this reference as a follow-up to your recent post and email. Otherwise, you are only doing your members a great DISSERVICE.

    http://www.conventionofstates.com/responses_to_convention_of_states_opposition

    1. Jeffersonian Patriot,

      As you can see, from all the differing opinions we are posting, we are open to debate on this subject.

      Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor

      1. You are doing that and I do appreciate that. However most people who received your email blast are not going to come to this website and review dissenting comments. In my opinion based on so many differing opinions, the right thing to do would be to publish a follow-up email blast identifying what you have stated in your comment here and referring people to the actual COS website page I identified in my post so people can read a fact based alternative viewpoint and make their own informed decision about where they stand on this very important issue. It is way too important to not provide dissenting viewpoints equal time and publicity given your group’s stated mission.

        1. “… most people who received your email blast are not going to come to this website and review dissenting comments.”

          Wow, you really think that the military – active and ex, the LE’s – active and ex, the rest of those who served in different areas under their Oaths are stupid.

          Of course we all (and I would be really surprised if it is not every single one – except those that do not read my VERY long comments here anymore as they know my stance) read them, and we usually respond to them, or if unfamiliar with the issue being discussed go research it to see the pros and cons.

          One does not make the decision to KEEP their Oath lightly, particularly when the ramifications lately can be actually deadly to the oath keeper.

          They inform themselves and make a decision because to do other then that is to do themselves and their families, their country a GREAT disservice.

          So please apologize to them for the insinuation that Oathkeepers are too stupid to bother to understand the discussion and make a decision based on their research and understanding.

          I may not always agree with them, but I respect them all like no one else.

        2. When I first came across the Article V debate, I looked at the claims made by those opposed and found there were false. As an example, I went to a law dictionary to see what a Constitutional Convention is. Clearly, there is no provision anywhere in our Constitution for that, so a con-con would be unconstitutional. I also dug deep into the historical record and discovered there was no runaway convention…this goes on and on.

          So, the only point I want to make to everyone is don’t believe everything you read in a email or on a webpage. You have to (like it or not) get into the history and learn the facts for yourself.

      2. Shorty , is this the one that the radio guy Lavine….can’t recall his first name spoke of getting off the ground?

    2. Of the many provable errors on your post, let’s start with your claim that an Article V convention is not a constitutional convention. Yes, I know the Convention of States group (COS) repeatedly makes this claim, but what evidence have they provided? None.

      On the contrary, grab a law dictionary, and look up the definition of “constitutional convention”. You’ll find that COS is not telling the truth about the definition of terms.

      If they are misleading people about that, they are not trustworthy.

      1. Black’s Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. – Constitutional Convention: A “duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.”

        1. Article V says that upon the application of 2/3 of the state’s legislatures the Congress SHALL call a convention for PROPOSING AMENDMENTS to THIS CURRENT CONSTITUTION!

          There is NOTHING in there about a Constitutional Convention, and whoever says that Article V calls for a Constitutional Convention is grossly deceiving people.

  24. I have been saying since people started talking about an Article V convention that “We The People ” need to demand US constitutional law be followed and we don’t need an Article V . Just enforce US Constitutional Law as it is/was written . I keep telling my friends you don’t want to open Pandora’s Box .

    1. You might be able to get stronger support for demanding constitutional law be followed with more satisfied customers, now majorly pumped with the attention focused on the content and arguing….. familiarity with the constitution breeds contempt for the violators in full force…. ttyl

    2. Mr Imwold,

      How will “We The People” “demand US constitutional law be followed”? Is there a nationwide group doing this? How is that working out?

      David Dietrich

        1. Mr Dawkins,

          We still have a government. We still have a Constitution. I thought you might understand that, given the mission of this organization. I intend to use all remedies in the Constitution to rein in the government. Will you be marching on Washington with an armed militia to force the issue?

          David Dietrich

      1. ddietrich, It would take education of the people in understanding a few very critical aspects and then demanding implementation. I will list some of what I think may be a good start.

        1.) Look up and read the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.

        2.) Look up and read the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933.

        3.) Look up and read the Lieber Code to understand how and why the above acts were hidden from the people and how TPTB implemented licensing and certificates for their slaves.

        4.) A good alternative in having to look up and read the Acts specified in 1 and 2 would be to read the linked 39 page paper titled War Powers Act of 1933 here: http://www.hudok.info/files/5514/2682/5615/War_Powers_Act_of_1933_with_highlights.pdf

        5.) Once the above has been researched, this new found education will most likely result in one being incredibly teed off to a point where he/she attempts to spread these facts on to friends and acquaintances and once absorbed by enough people they start to voice demands that the so called president signs a proclamation to abolish the stranglehold of the War Powers Act.

        6.) Once this proclamation to abolish the WPA is complete, maybe the people can then demand that the so called president performs a lawful Article VI subscribed oath of office to ‘THIS’ Constitution where he/she is now contracted to abide by the constitution via a lawful contract.

        I totally realize that what I suggest above will never happen and such would only be a start and would not be the holy grail to freedom because the fraud, deceit, and corruption of our government is so entrenched, change from within is impossible.

      2. Constitution of the United States of America, Second Amendment:

        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        The Basics of “Who” (are the Militia):

        All able-bodied Americans plus those lawfully allowed to be here – excluding “public servants” – from age 18 through age 60 are the Militia of the several states. The Militia equals “We the People of the USA” because each state’s Militia is made of its lawful citizens excluding “representatives”, and the state’s can work together as needed for defense and to enforce the US Constitution or each state’s Constitution.

        The Preamble to the US Constitution; starts with: “We the People of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution”,

        By those words it is saying that “We the People” are the source of any and all legal status of the state and federal governments. “We” created them for specific purposes, and it was NOT to destroy our lives, control us, spy on us, track us, or murder us. Basically all public officials – state and federal representatives, state and federal law enforcement, state and federal judges, the multitude of state and federal bureaucracies – are called “public servants” for a reason – they are literally our hirelings.

        The US Constitution and all that is “in Pursuance thereof” it, as the supreme (highest) law of this land in the areas where it was given jurisdiction says that “We” (as the Militia of the several states) are personally responsible for maintaining and protecting the US Constitution, each state’s Constitution, and seeing to their enforcement against ALL foes – domestic and foreign. “We” are the ones responsible for enforcing the laws of this land, and are charged with it’s defense plus the defense of our homes, neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, and country.

        Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.

        This clause is very straightforward also. The militia of each state is taxed with the defense of the USA and her people, not just with the defense of their state; and they are to be armed with weapons that can repel any invasions bearing modern weapons of war. Congress is required to provide those military grade weapons for the militias.

        Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

        When the founders created the US Constitution they realized that we would never be able to count on state and federal representatives or agencies to protect our lives, property, and freedom. They decided to continue with what the people here had already been using, and the one proven throughout history to have the best needs of the people themselves always put first, the Militia of the several states. Who are the Militia? All able-bodied citizens or those legally allowed to be here between the ages of 18 – 60.

        Each state’s Militia is made up of “We the People” protecting our own interests, homes, states, nation, and enforcing our governments. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:

        — Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
        — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
        — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
        — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

        That way it would not be those who serve within our government that wanted power, money, or etc badly enough to become a domestic enemy of the USA or a traitor to the American people who made the final decision with American arms – military or otherwise. It is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation, and to enforce the LAWS of then land, which include the US Constitution and each states Constitution.

        The forefathers wouldn’t put the militia under federal control as there was always a chance that those in office would turn traitorous against the people. They already had learned, and history taught – then and now, that people in places of power could not be trusted. So they broke it up; the people ARE the militia and would keep the best interests of the people themselves at the forefront of all decisions made.

  25. This sounds like John Birch Society propaganda. We “don’t know about Article V” amendatory conventions because “We the People” have been piss poor stewards of our Constitutional History. There have been over 750 motions for an amendatory convention. The Federal Government does not control it. And, even if the convention were to “runaway” as Birchers fear; 38 states have to ratify the change.

    This article shows the ignorance of our fellow citizens…
    http://www.thenation.com/article/198457/move-amend

    Then, there is the George Soros funding of the Anti-Article V movement…
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-birchers-fight-constitutional-fix-to-limit-obama-congress/article/2561547

    What is an Article V Convention?
    Our Constitution provides two methods for amending its provisions. The first method and the one used exclusively so far, starts with Congress proposing, passing and then forwarding to the State legislatures the proposed amendment for ratification. This method has been exercised for all 27 ratified amendments and for the 6 proposed amendments that were not ratified. The control of the proposal process lies in the hands of Congress and the ratification is controlled by the States.

    The second method involves the States issuing calls for a convention to propose and debate amendments. This method requires 2/3 of the States, via their legislatures, to issue a call, or application, to Congress for a convention that is limited to proposing amendments. When the requisite number of States has made the call, currently 34 of the 50 States, Congress SHALL issue the call to the States. Congress sets the location and date(s). The States themselves conduct the convention. Upon closing of the convention, the proposed amendments are then sent to the State legislatures. Congress has one last power in specifying the method of ratification – by either the State legislatures or State ratification conventions – the last method having been used for the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition. When ¾ of the States ratify a particular amendment, it becomes a part of the Constitution.

    The Article V Convention is NOT the same as the constitutional convention that was held in 1787 in Philadelphia which was a “plenipotentiary” convention with the explicit power to draft a constitution.
    Article V Conventions are “amendatory”, that is, limited in power – by the Constitution – to proposing amendments only. It does NOT have the power to rewrite or replace the US Constitution. It can only propose new amendments. Finally, the States would still have to ratify the proposed amendments.
    Throughout our history, the States have issued approximately 750 calls for an Article V Convention. These calls, from 49 of the 50 States, have ranged in specificity from a general convention that addresses any and all proposed amendments to a convention for a singular, and thus limited, proposal such as a balanced budget or women’s suffrage. Congress has chosen to ignore these calls for a convention despite the fact that on at least three occasions, it would appear that a sufficient number of States had applied for a convention.

    Simply stated, an Article V Convention is a constitutional provision for the States to address the constitutional issues affecting the nation with limited interference from or reliance on Congress. It is a safety valve for the Republic to protect the States and the People from an out-of-control, oppressive and potentially tyrannical federal government.

    OATHKEEPERS should lead the call for Article V Constitutional Amendment Convention:
    The fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government must be halted and reversed. We can see the government has no fear of a financial collapse – and with that, political collapse. We just need to look at Detroit or California to see the fate awaiting us if we do nothing and continue to accept the status quo.
    The most effective way that the States and the People can reassert control of a bloated and tyrannical federal government is through acting in concert with the other States to define the limits of that federal government. The Framers of the Constitution wisely provided a mechanism to restrain an oppressive federal government – we must exercise that mechanism.

    As OATHKEEPERS we must call for an Article V Constitutional Amendment Convention as this is the only constitutional means for the people in the states to force the federal government to bend to the will of the states and citizens.

    Many are adverse to calling for a constitutional convention for fear of the convention becoming a “runaway” and with that a wholesale scrapping of the current Constitution by drafting and adoption of a new, different constitution devoid of civil liberties and government restraint. That is why the call is for an amendatory convention. The amendatory convention was designed by the Framers to prevent such a runaway occurrence. It allows only for the proposal and debate of amendments which must be then ratified by three-fourths of the States.

    Since 1789, when the US Constitution was ratified, 49 of the States have made an estimated 749 applications to Congress for an Article V Amendment Convention. Currently, 27 states have issued a call for a convention and it takes 34 states to force the federal government to accept a state run convention.

    We now ask that our State Legislatures introduce and pass a bill applying to Congress to call for an Article V Amendment Convention. We should ask that the Governor sign the bill when presented. Then, we should ask that state’s elected federal officials in Congress vigorously support the application. We
    implore our Legislature to begin immediately working with the other States to organize and carry out the Convention.

    If we, as a people, are to regain our Liberty, restore the Rule of Law based on the Constitution, and set our national financial house in order, then we must assert ourselves through the Constitution. By doing so, we join the chorus call from our sister States nationwide for an Article V Amendment Convention.

    1. Mr. Gamble, very well put. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read the title of this article. Reading the article I saw that when the author quoted Article V, the portion of the paragraph that gives a line of delineation between who and how the convention is called, was left out. I would like to believe this was an oversight but to much of the text was left out. I joined Oath Keepers because I liked what I read on the website and in their literature. But if disinformation like this is allowed to propagate, this group will not last. Most of us here in Oath Keepers have served in the military or are serving in the military. We understand that the one thing that the thing that binds us together is unity. But if disinformation like this is allowed it will destroy the unity that currently exists.

      As it stands right now if there isn’t a push back or rebuttal of some kind from the organization (who should have verified the quote from the Constitution in first place) I will have to seriously consider canceling my membership. I realize I am just one person, But I am also a Marine veteran (Cold War era). Integrity is very important to me and if Oath Keepers cannot measure up to that I will cancel.

        1. Beware of the Convention of States (COS)

          The COS application pretends to be limited, but the carefully-chosen words it contains create an unlimited convention.

          For example, it says the convention shall impose fiscal restraints. Now show me, if you can, where those restraints are required to be lower than current spending levels? Can’t find it? Does that mean they could set the levels HIGHER?

          What about limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government? The Constitution already does that. This amendment proposes to replace those limits. Would those new limits be an increase or a decrease in power and jurisdiction? It does not say. It is a blank check, placed in the hands of the convention.

          COS talks about calling a limited convention, but they do not do so.

          1. Mr Brown,

            Embrace the Convention of States!

            The COS is limited in both its objectives and by Article V of the Constitution itself. Saying it’s otherwise doesn’t make it otherwise.

            But, let’s take your approach. An Amendment is proposed for ratification that allows unlimited spending. Is it possible that 3/4 of the states will ratify? Sure, but so is an invasion by Canada.

            Your notions of an Amendment Convention being a “blank check” to do anything they want is rather far-fetched. Ultimately, you’re also assuming that the states and the people will just accept whatever happens.

            We are still a nation of laws, at least in the broader sense. Your fear mongering isn’t an effective argument. What is your plan, including timeline, for solving our Federal Government problems?

            David Dietrich

    2. “The second method involves the States issuing calls for a convention to propose and debate amendments. This method requires 2/3 of the States, via their legislatures, to issue a call, or application, to Congress for a convention that is limited to proposing amendments.”

      Notice that it is a petition to the US Congress to Call a convention. We cannot limit the convention unless we have non corrupted representatives – if the congress decides they can be the ones to represent us – go to it and follow our directives. When the Congress calls a convention they create the rules that go along with that call. At least that is my reading of the US Constitution, can you show me differently?

      Because as it stands we may have 5 less corrupted representatives serving within the federal AND state governments. And I personally am not willing to rest the fate of MY Constitutional Republic upon the rest of their treasonous azzes.

      1. Cal,

        Yes, the states “apply” to Congress to “call” an Amendment Convention. It is just that – a limited Convention for proposing Amendments. Just read the words several times and you’ll get it. Congress doesn’t get to “decide” anything. They only have two Constitutional roles in the process – calling the Convention and proposing the Mode of Ratification. Since Amendment X identifies all other powers, the rules are decided by the States and the delegates themselves.

        I personally am not willing to rest the fate of MY Constitutional Republic upon the notion of an a la carte Constitution. We must act based on the entire document!

        David Dietrich

        1. ” We must act based on the entire document!”

          Ahh, sorry, I didn’t realize that you already started a state Militia within your state. What about the (real) Grand Jury? Have you been educating the people of your state that it is THEIR tool, and NOT under any branch of the federal or state governments? That they can call for a Grand Jury Investigation, assign the people to do the investigation, and then call for a jury trial and the only LAWFUL purpose a judge has is to administer the Oaths.

          Those are other constitutional tools to ENFORCE the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it, and to enforce each states Constitution.

          Then there is the “Good Behaviour” doctrine that holds judges accountable for their duties assigned by the US Constitution and state Constitutions when that applies, and to keeping their Oaths.

          Can you share with us here what problems you ran into in the state where you live implementing these constitutional tools of the people and how you countered those problems, because here in my state I have had a few night visits and would love to find a way to stop them while still teaching about and getting implemented the tools of the people for enforcement of the US Constitution and state Constitutions.

          US Constitution, Article III, Section 1:

          The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

          The US Constitution assigns what all judges, state and federal, must do to be allowed to stay in a judicial position, they are:
          Required to take, and keep an Oath(s), or a combined Oath.
          Required to “support and defend” the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it before the duties of the office they occupy.
          Required to carry out the enumerated duties assigned to the judicial branch by the US Constitution in a constitutional manner.

          That is “Good Behaviour” for judges.

          The concept is that “Good Behaviour” allows for the opposite, “bad behavior” or misbehavior. This is backed up historically by a debate John Adams had with William Brattle about the ‘tenure of judges’. At the end of the debate both men agreed that if a judge was appointed during good behavior, then he could also be removed by using “bad behavior”. But this removal was only after receiving a “hearing and trial, and an opportunity to defend himself before a fuller board, knowing his accuser and accusation”.

          The judge(s) whose behavior was in question would get a trial by jury made up of the people making that decision. Accountability through the “Good Behaviour” standard is critical to the continued freedom and independence of the USA; of keeping judges to the US Constitution instead of to factions, lobbyists, or to the different branches of government, or even from foreign entanglements.

          The 1790 Crimes Act is a great example of this being used in America as it provided that a judge convicted of taking a bribe would, by virtue of the conviction, be “forever . . . disqualified to hold any office of honour, trust or profit under the United States.” That conviction would deprive the judge of life tenure of the office being occupied. This falls under the “Good Behaviour” tenure.

          GRAND JURY
          “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

          “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)

          “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

          “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

          “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

          “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

          “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

          The Preamble to the US Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

          This means that the people themselves are the last word on all of those who serve within the branches of our governments, though that “last word” must also be “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution.

          AS I said, I support using the tools the US Constitution gave us to use, and the Militia is a MANDATORY tool of the people as is using the Grand Jury, and “Good Behaviour” for holding those who serve within our governments accountable.

          Can you tell me that YOU have your MANDATORY Militia up and running within your state? That you have used the other tools of enforcement before going directly to an Article 5?

          Then please assist the rest of us in our states with getting them up and running.

          1. Cal,

            It’s nice reading your exceedingly long responses. I’ll try to be a little more succinct.

            Q: Have I started a state militia?
            A: No. But, I certainly support it.

            Q: Am I educating the people on Constitution, Grand Jury , Jury Nullification, etc?
            A: Yes, And I am continuing to do more. For example, look how much you have learned from this discussion!

            By the way, there is only one way to ENFORCE the Constitution, or anything else for that matter – with force. Who’s got it and willing to use it?

            Q: What problems have I encountered in my state?
            A: I have encountered two main problems in Virginia. From government officials at the state level, unwillingness to take a principled stand. And at the local level, refusal to engage at the outset. From the people, almost complete apathy and laziness.

            One of the goals of the Convention of States Project is to propose an Amendment limiting the tenure of Federal Judges.

            The Grand Jury is a great idea. I welcome you or anyone else to set one up for the purpose of prosecuting “bad behavior.”

            As for Militia, Grand Jury, and “Good Behavior” being MANDATORY tools of the people, I can probably support your contention, even though they are not explicate in the Constitution.

            It still bewilders me, however, why you consider other, specifically codified Constitutional actions, such as the Convention for proposing Amendments, to be OPTIONAL. That is where the term, “Semi-Constitutionalist” arises.

            The fact that I haven’t USED all the Constitutional tools available to me doesn’t alter the fact that I support ALL of them. I will do what I can when able. That is what makes me a true Constitutionalist.

            David Dietrich

          2. @ ddietrich, (sorry, but no reply under your comment so had to use this) “By the way, there is only one way to ENFORCE the Constitution, or anything else for that matter – with force. Who’s got it and willing to use it?”

            That is why you create a Militia, and, by the way, they are NOT a state Militia, they are the Militias of the several states – not under the state government except when called into service or being trained, officers selected, that kind of thing. Nor are the Militias under the federal government, again, except when called into service.

            Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 28: “The militia is a voluntary force NOT associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.”

            It is also really important to understand that those who serve within our governments – state and federal were FORBIDDEN to create and keep a standing military EXCEPT when the congress declares War, and then it can be funded for 2 years. They were also FORBIDDEN to create a governmental professional law enforcement, but are constitutionally REQUIRED to rely upon the Militias so that the USA could never become a “police”state, or under “military rule”.

            I do admit to creating long comments, that is because I do my utmost to present the facts, backed up by the US Constitution, the framers, the forefathers, and writings of that time – all of which still apply today.

            Oh, I have been fighting against the Article 5 Convention for about a year now, and when making a point refer to my notes. But when you do bring up a point that I have not countered, or heard, I will research it and get back to you on it.

            If you really want an Article 5 BEFORE you use the Constitutionally MANDATED forms that belong to the people to enforce the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it, and the state Constitutions I have to wonder why?

            Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE SWORD IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT, BUT, where I trust in God it will ever remain, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE”.

            I figure you are knowledgeable enough to realize that all LE’s – state and federal – are ONLY lawful here in America when they keep their Oath.

          3. Cal, and also to David Dietrich who has responded to you —
            Here are a few passages from Dr. Edwin Vieira’s book, “Three Rights”, which I mentioned in the article above:

            THREE RIGHTS
            by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.
            writing April 05 2015

            The assertion “We The People of the United States ***do ordain and establish this Constitution” enounces a right, a privilege, and a power to constitute a “government”. It emphasizes that this “government” did not “ordain and establish” itself, and that public officials did not “ordain and establish” either their own offices or the authority of those offices, because no “government” or public official is infused with a right, privilege, or power to “ordain and establish” anything independent of The People. “Government” and officialdom are political creatures, not creators. They arise ex nihilo from The People’s will, and are always subject to it. As long as public officials claim to exercise “governmental” powers under the aegis of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they must also acknowledge that We The People are the original authors of, the real parties in interest with respect to, and the absolute and final arbiters of both of those documents – and that therefore all officials owe duties of loyalty and obedience to The People, embodied in and fully enforceable through the Constitution’s unqualified command that every official “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”. By necessary implication, “to support this Constitution” includes a duty to support the Declaration of Independence, too, because the legal authority of the Constitution depends upon the ongoing legal efficacy of the Declaration.

            The statement “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of the [ ] ends [for which Governments are instituted among Men], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it” invokes, not only an explicit right, but also an implicit privilege and power utterly to transform the body of law which provides for that “Form of Government”. This being “the Right of the People” alone, neither the “destructive” “Form of Government” nor any of its officials can claim any say in the process, or assert any right, power, or privilege to resist any stage of the transformation. Rather, both are exposed without recourse to whatever changes “the People” may make and whatever means “the People” may employ to make those changes, and labor under a moral, political, and legal duty to acquiesce in the result.

            * The declaration “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce the [ People ] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government” affirms, not only an explicit right and duty, but also an implicit power, of “the People”. But not, quite revealingly, a privilege – for a privilege is the opposite of a duty; and because, under the posited circumstances, it is “their duty to throw off such Government”, “the People cannot be free or at liberty not to do so. On the other side, because every “Government” is no more than a mere creature and instrument of “the People”, and it is “the [ People’s] duty, to throw off [an abusive] Government”, then no “such Government” can claim either a right or a power to oppose ”the People’s” fulfillment of that duty. Indeed, because it is “the People’s” “right” under “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” to “throw off such Government”, it is the correlative duty of every “such Government” to allow itself to be “throw[n] off.” Any resistance interposed against “the People” is fundamentally unlawful. Thus “the People’s “ “right” and “duty” imply an absolute immunity from interference by rogue public officials and a correlative absolute disability in those officials.

            Skip to page 12 –

            From the foregoing can be deduced:
            (1) We The People’s original right and power of declaration, ordination, and establishment of the supreme law of the land (the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution).
            (2) We The People’s right of on-going supervision and participation in the operations of the governmental apparatus at every level of the federal system – by voting for various “representatives”; by investigation, exposure, and criticism of public officials through exercise of “the freedom[s] of speech” and “of the press”, and by “petition[ing] the Government for a redress of grievances”; and especially by serving in “the Militia of the several States”.
            (3) We The People’s Right of Resistance against every manifestation of usurpation and tyranny.
            (4) We The People’s Right of Restoration of a government of “just powers” at every level of the federal system.
            First, by the simple recognition that the Constitution does fully incorporate the principle of the Declaration of Independence that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers” – and only such powers – “from the consent of the governed”. The Preamble to the Constitution identifies as one of its purposes “to***establish Justice”. The Preamble establishes an overarching rule of construction and application with respect to everything that follows in the Constitution. Therefore, all of the powers delegated to the General Government and reserved to the States must be so construed as to constitute “just powers” only, and must be applied only to that extent – precisely as the Declaration asserts must always be the case for every legitimate “Form of Government” under “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.
            Second, by reliance on the right of reformation – the right to preserve what is good and eliminate what is bad; to repair, alter, and improve what has proven defective but can nonetheless be salvaged; and to compel wrongdoers in public office to make as complete reparations for their nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance as possible, in accordance with the requirements that they all “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support th[e] Constitution”.
            Third, when all else fails, by recourse to the right of “revolution” – yet “revolution” only in a narrow sense: namely, “to abolish” an old and “destructive” “Form of Government” and “to provide new Guards for the [People’s] future security”, by “institute[ing] new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to the [ People] shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” in conformity with “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.
            (5) Through the exercise of all of these rights, We The People’s Right of Renewal of their government, and through it of their Nation. For if The PEOPLE enjoy a right to form their own nation in the first place, they certainly possess a right to renew its vitality from time to time as the need arises.

            Thus can be identified We The People’s most important Three Rights as against any corrupted “Form of Government” and the rogue public officials who administer it; Resistance to bad government, Restoration of good government, and by those means Renewal for the Nation. Self-evidently, all of these rights also implicate duties, because if they are not exercised in a timely and effective manner, and rogue officials cause the existing “Form of Government” to degenerate to the point at which it cannot be salvaged, THE PEOPLE will be compelled to exercise “their right” and to fulfill “their duty, to throw off such Government” entirely. So, well before THE PEOPLE arrive at the point at which circumstances compel them to exercise that “right” and to fulfill that “duty” – that is, even while the situation involves systematic usurpation and tyranny eating away at the vitals of public administration, but has not yet led to a state of affairs in which that “Form of Government [has] become [ irreparably] destructive [of the true ends of Government]” – THE PEOPLE must not only enjoy a right but also must labor under a duty to exercise and enjoy their other various rights, powers, privileges, duties, and immunities in such a way as will render their assertion of “their [ultimate] right” and their fulfillment of “their [ultimate] duty” unnecessary.

            -end quoted passages from Three Rights by Edwin Vieira-

            The book is awesome. All Oath Keepers will want the book and the wisdom within it.

            Salute!
            Elias Alias, editor

  26. “Friends, the Constitution was created for a moral and religious people. ”

    Because we are no longer a moral and religious people a convention is needed.

    1. Extremely well said. As, Our Constitution is only as good as those that are willing to abide by it, uphold it and defend it. Also noted is that without Independence, there is no Constitution/Bill of Rights.

    2. Joe Ureneck. Can a “no longer moral and religious people” be trusted and responsible with holding a convention?

  27. A totally wrong assessment, by someone who has no idea what he’s talking about. A convention of states is necessary because there is no other way to amend the Constitution to restrain the powers of the federal government. The leadership in Congress will never allow any amendment to be brought to the floor that would reduce their powers, nor would two-thirds of both houses vote to deprive themselves of any power. This is the way to bypass Congress, and bring the possibilities of controlling federal power before the states.

    To begin with, a convention of states under Article V has no power to rewrite the Constitution, or change it in any way, only to propose amendments that must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures to become effective (the same as amendments proposed and passed by Congress). I agree that a balanced-budget amendment is useless, since there is no way to give it the necessary flexibility, without making it so easy to circumvent, as to be meaningless. But, there are many other ideas being proposed that would be of great value.

    There are proposals to limit the terms of congressmen, senators and federal judges, and provide options for their recall; to provide a mechanism, whereby a super-majority of states could overturn federal laws and court rulings; to repeal the 17th Amendment and give state governments back their representation in Congress; to clarify the meaning of the “commerce clause”, preventing the feds from claiming that everything is related to commerce in some way, and they have power to regulate it; clarifying that Congress does not have authority to delegate their lawmaking powers to the regulatory bureaucracy, to write “rules” with the force of law. This is only a beginning — there is no end of possibilities to take away the power of the federal government to tyrannize us and steal our money — and none of it would ever be approved by Congress, only the states can do it. The federal government is interested in perpetuating and expanding the power they have seized over the years, not in returning any of it to the states, or the people.

    1. Mr. Bisley,
      You, and others who support the Convention, have not answered one important point: If Congress, the President, and State Governments, as well as a plethora of Agencies and Departments, have not abided by the Constitution, what makes you think they will abide by any changes that end up being ratified by the States? If Constitutionalists can’t get elected to office, what will changes to the Constitution mean? Your reply is awaited.

      Shorty Dawkins

      1. Mr Dawkins,

        In lieu of doing nothing and accepting the status quo, which seems to be the majority position of Oath Keepers leadership, I intend to take the fight to our Federal Government in a big way, through an Amendment Convention. At least more people will be fighting together for a common cause, and have the advantage of numbers in a showdown with the Federal Government. What have you got to offer, besides electing better representatives or forcing them to do our bidding?

        David Dietrich

        1. “In lieu of doing nothing and accepting the status quo, which seems to be the majority position of Oath Keepers leadership”

          Doing nothing? You dare to accuse them of doing nothing when THEY stood for the Bundy’s against that unlawful attempted land grab using military force. When THEY stood for the people, showing them what they need to do in a FREE AND INDEPENDENT nation to defend themselves and their businesses.

          They have stood, on foreign grounds AND on American soil.

          When have YOU stood? Why are you not fighting for the constitutionally MANDATED forms of Constitutional enforcement FIRST?

  28. We desperately need to conduct an extensive and thorough “Liberal”(commie) trash season but any such convention is held, to make sure no foxes get into the hen house. It wouldn’t hurt to eradicate a few republicrats and other assorted authoritarians along the way as well.

    They lied about the ratification of the 16th Amendment. Think it can’t happen again? If they re-write the entire document, they’ll make up the rules, new rules, as they go along anyway.

    The only way I’d agree to it would be with a militia contingent outside the front door to arrest, try and execute any trash that threatened the Bill of rights or the separation of powers in any way. Our domestic blood enemies would love to saddle us with a parliament or something worse.

    Don’t understand my bad attitude? Start here: http://www.freekentucky.com/the-must-readwatch-page/

  29. Attention All Oath Keepers!

    Why the Article V Convention Must Be Embraced

    If Mr Stang represents the opinion of the Oath Keepers leadership, then the organization has already lost its way. It has become nothing but an arm of the John Birch Society. Since when is Oath Keepers a political advocacy group? What happened to its stated mission: “fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution”? What is it they are defending? If it is the Constitution, then what does this mean? Is it merely the part they like or you like, or rather the entire document?

    This is a critical issue! If so-called defenders of the Constitution cannot even agree on what they are defending, then what’s the point? We may as well all just go home and accept that all is hopelessly lost. In this matter, there are only two kinds of people. First, there are those who support, defend, and embrace the entire Constitution, in other words, true Constitutionalists. And then there are those who consider the Constitution to be an a la carte document, whereby the enemy du jour precludes acceptance of the parts that seem a little too risqué for application. These are merely “semi-constitutionalists.” Like Progressivism and Fabian Socialism, they are willing to set aside natural, unerring law for something relative and subject to change at any time.

    Now, let’s quickly address Mr Stang’s points and put them easily to rest. First, his main argument is based on fear: “Is there anything else that could happen?” Is that the best he can do? Is Oath Keepers nothing but a bunch of panty waists who run at the sight of their shadows? If we shouldn’t embrace the Constitution simply because it’s too scary, then what have we become? What did our forefathers provide us, if not a mechanism to take matters into our own hands? You are shrinking from your duty if you do not accept this challenge! Do you really expect any branch of the Federal Government to rein in its own power?

    Mr Stang answers his own question with, “I can’t say for sure, but consider this: if the US Government had any chance of ridding itself of the chains that Jefferson prescribed, do you think it would take the chance? Any way to rid itself formally of the Bill of Rights?” Mr Stang obviously hasn’t been paying attention to what’s been happening to this country over the last couple of centuries, much less in the last ten years. Take a look at the unratified Constitution, which is the law of the land: https://www.congress.gov/constitution-annotated. This 3,000-page monstrosity has for all practical purposed replaced the little book you likely consider the law of the land. The US Government has already rid itself of the chains that Jefferson prescribed! For some reason Mr Stang accepts this state of affairs, since he is unwilling to attempt a rebalancing of that equation. How else will the power of final arbitration be wrested from the Supreme Court and put back where it belongs, into the hands of the States and the People?

    Mr Stang asks, “Who would be sent to this Convention?” There’s a clear answer – delegates designated by the states. That’s the historical precedent. Why does he think others will suddenly appear out of the shadows, perhaps protected by legions of armed DHS agents? As for controlling the event, I have thought about that. It will be controlled by the state delegates. Alternatively, let’s take Mr Stang’s position that somehow someone else will control it. Isn’t that what we have today with our Federal government? Once again, Mr Stang is satisfied with the current state of affairs at the expense of taking Constitutional action to remedy the situation. Does that not make Mr Stang an abetter of the ruling cabal? Mr Stang asserts that the Federal Government will “be forming and planning the convention.” Really? How does he know that? Why won’t it be the Black Panthers or KKK? Those are equally irrational assertions.

    As for whether delegates selected by the states will “faithfully execute the charter given them by the various state legislatures around the country,” does Mr Stang prefer to put his confidence in Federal elected and unelected officials? Since there is no effective alternative national organization to elect better representatives or force the current lot to propose amendments to reduce their own power, I for one, choose the remedy provided to us by the Founders. Only the Convention of States Project has this charter and capacity. And by the way, the delegates at the last convention did exactly what they were authorized by their state legislatures to do, prepare a new Constitution. An Article V Convention for proposing Amendments has only that authority – to propose Amendments. Any resulting Amendments must then be ratified by three quarters of the states.

    Mr Stang then goes on to posit that Congress may simply “throw out the whole Constitution.” That’s preposterous on its face! Using such logic, why don’t they do that now? In a way, they already have. I refer you again to the Constitution Annotated link above. All one has to do is read Amendment X to understand that the states have all the power they need to execute a Convention of States. And by the same authority, Congress has zero, zippo, none, regarding its operation. They merely must call (mandatory) the event and may propose (optional) ratification mode. Once again, Congress doesn’t run it. The states do. So the standard red herring of “throwing out the Constitution” is meaningless. It’s simply not an intelligent argument. As a result, Messieurs Boehner, McConnell, and Obama don’t even enter the equation.

    Mr Stang asks why we need a COS. The obvious answer is to rein in the Federal Government. Perhaps a better answer is to elevate the debate to the national level so that the states will take back the authority they demanded at the outset. Does Mr Stang have a viable alternative? What is it and how long will it take? Who’s doing it? Clearly, Mr Stang has no strategy. If he did, then we’d be following it already. Mr Stang appears to be against new laws and Amendments. In the former case, we agree. In the latter, he seems to accept our historical Amendment process. In that we agree. But, Amendments with real teeth will never be proposed or ratified without the states leading the effort. How else will we ever eliminate bad laws, bad Amendments, agencies, and even departments? I’m waiting and I’m sure I’ll be waiting for an answer until the cows come home.

    Finally, we agree that the “Constitution was created for a moral and religious people.” But then, that is where we part. I am willing to fight for that Constitution in every lawful way at our disposal. Mr Stang, on the other hand, prefers to simply sit on his hands and accept the collapse without a whimper. If we are truly a religious people, then let’s show it! Let’s fight for what is right, instead of just declaring, “woe is me!” And it’s quite disturbing to see Mr Stang’s declaration that the Constitution has “no soul.” On the contrary, it represents the soul of our nation! Without it, we are nothing. I thought Oath Keepers was about protecting what remains and taking back what has been lost. It appears that I may be sadly mistaken.

    If Mr Stang thinks that there are no good people left to fight for the Constitution, then why is he a Board member? He certainly doesn’t speak for me. Words have meaning. The words in the Constitution have immense meaning. Will we forsake them because we are too frightened to actually fight for it? We can play what-if games all day long, but we end up no better off, and quite likely worse off in the end. Our Declaration of Independence, organic law of our nation, says it best: “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government.” Where is your red line?

    Please ponder these questions and facts as you decide whether to support or oppose the Convention of States. Just remember this: when people tell you not to do something because it’s too hard or too scary, that’s when you should buck up and start.

    David Dietrich

    1. ddietrich,
      You state: What happened to its stated mission: “fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution”? What is it they are defending? If it is the Constitution, then what does this mean? Is it merely the part they like or you like, or rather the entire document?

      I answer: By this statement, you imply that Oath Keepers doesn’t support the entire Constitution. You are dead wrong, sir. You seem to think that if anyone disagrees with your call for a Convention, They are opposing the Constitution. They are not. The Constitution gives as a means of amending the Constitution, the method of Conventions. Agreed. Someone opposing the idea is not opposing the Constitution, (they are opposing the use of this option at the present time), and it is disingenuous of you to make that suggestion. I feel you owe Mr. Stang and Oath Keepers an apology for suggesting it.

      You have made other attacks upon Mr. Stang, and Oath Keepers, for which an apology should be forthcoming, if you are an honorable man. Ad hominem attacks on individuals and organizations, because you differ with their opinion, is uncalled for. Stick to the subject, sir.

      Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor

      1. Mr Dawkins,

        I find your response to be hollow and without merit. Somehow you think you can pick and choose when and where you apply elements of our Constitution, and still support the entire Constitution. Alas, it cannot be so. You either support all aspects at all times, or you are no better than those who oppose our Constitutional Republic. Once again, it is not a la carte. It is whole and indivisible.

        My accusation is quite genuine in fact. As a result, I feel you owe the entire Oath Keepers membership an apology for misconstruing the nature of this organization. I happen to believe in the Oath Keepers mission. Unfortunately, the leadership has highjacked that mission and made it something else. I have made no attacks on anyone. Rather I have stated facts and made observations. Your use of the term ad hominem is erroneous. I am sticking to the facts. That’s why it’s so hard to argue with emotion.

        David Dietrich

        1. Mr. Dietrich,
          You have yet to show how we pick and choose what we support.
          You said: ” You either support all aspects at all times, or you are no better than those who oppose our Constitutional Republic. Once again, it is not a la carte. It is whole and indivisible.”
          It is you who are picking and choosing. For Mr. Stang, or anyone, has the right to oppose the usage of the Convention option. It is a matter of choice, sir, just as choosing a candidate for office is a choice. Neither Mr. Stang, nor any of the others who have come out against the COS have said it is unconstitutional, but merely a bad choice. It is YOU who infer they don’t accept the Constitution in its entirety because of that choice.

          Shorty Dawkins

          1. Mr Dawkins,

            I have shown you several times already how you pick and choose what you support. And you’ve responded by quibbling that what you’re doing is somehow different. Then you equate not supporting the entire Constitution with choosing a candidate. I’m afraid apples and oranges just don’t cut it. Inserting a non sequitur doesn’t bolster your argument. I never stated that you “said it is unconstitutional.” Rather, I stated that you don’t support the entire Constitution. There’s a big difference. Which other parts of the Constitution do you think are a “bad choice” at this time?

            David Dietrich

          2. Mr. Dietrich,
            Again, you make it seem like you have answered my questions. This is the first time you have come close to answering them. However, your belief that we must use your methods, rather those we choose, is arrogant. I say, use the method you CAN use, that you believe will be useful, while you demand we march in lockstep with your beliefs. Sorry.

            Let me ask you a few direct questions. I’d appreciate direct answers. Have you publicly demanded the return of the Constitutional Militia? We have. Have you demanded a return to sound money? We have. Have you called for the abolishment of the Patriot Act and the NDAA “indefinite detention” provisions? We have.
            Have you stood with the Bundys? We have. Have you spoken against the Safe Act in New York, and the Connecticut gun laws that are unConstitutional? We have.

            Mr. Dietrich, if you have not done all these things, I suggest you are not supporting the ENTIRE Constitution.

            Shorty Dawkins

          3. Mr Dawkins,

            Since you didn’t provide me a means to reply directly to your later postings, I will address your 22:41 missive here.

            You misconstrue me once again. You seem to think that I am only demanding the application of one part of the Constitution. On that you are sadly mistaken. Rather, I demand that we use the entire Constitution at all times, as well as the powers identified in our other Founding Documents. You say “use the method you CAN use,” but then oppose at least one method that you CAN use. I, on the other hand, agree with your first clause, but then actually support that in its entirety. Sorry, but once again, I believe in the entire Constitution.

            I’ll answer your questions, which by the way are once again non sequiturs. No, but I agree with it. Yes, for the last two years at least. No, but I agree with it, if a little crude in its execution. No, because I haven’t been much involved in other states’ issues. But, good for you!

            Mr Dawkins, you somehow think because I don’t actually do everything possible, that there is somehow a Constitutional link there. That’s the difference between me and you, sir. I’m not opposing any Constitutional action you may take. But you do oppose Constitutional action I am taking. You don’t seem to understand the difference between those two positions.

            David Dietrich

        2. Mr. Diedrich, do not say that Shorty is lying, YOU are the one misconstruing facts when you say “somehow you think you can pick and choose when and where you apply elements of our Constitution, and still support the entire Constitution.”

          Choosing whether or not one believes that an Article 5 Convention is good at this time with the type of people that are serving within our state governments has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE US CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

          As pretty much everyone here will tell you I do NOT use politic speak because it is usually lies hidden in words made to construe one thing, but actually mean another – and YOU sir, are very well trained to do exactly that. (and YES it does take training.) So sir, who are you trained by, and for what purpose?

          I am those who serve within the federal governments worst nightmare. I am self educated, able to critically think, willing to do the research American.

          I support no one unthinkingly and I understand the use of politicspeak to place limits on thinking.

          You seem to be here to discredit Oathkeepers more then support an Article 5 Convention. You do not debate it, you just attack.

          That right there SHOULD have any thinking person, regardless of if they are for or against an Article 5 suspicious of what YOU say.

          Those that read my posts, and I would not be surprised if you could have them called up for you instantly, know that I question and call out Oathkeepers on things I disagree with, though I support them overall.

          Keep your arguments to the Article 5 reasons why YOU feel it should go on, and to the FACTS that you have that makes it something that should not be regarded as questionable, and I, and other thinking people at this site, and there are MANY, will also do the same – for and against.

          1. Cal,

            Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t call anyone a liar. It is you who doesn’t understand the argument. We don’t have the luxury of choosing when and where to apply the Constitution. It is simply an all-or-nothing proposition. Do we have a Constitutional Republic or do we have a Semi-Constitutional Republic?

            As pretty much everyone here will tell you, I do not use politic speak. I say what I mean and mean what I say. I appreciate the compliment, though, that I seem to be trained in rhetoric. I wish I had been. It’s a pretty useful skill.

            In any case, I recommend that you take some time yourself to build a more effective argument to support your case. You let your emotions get the better of you. As for you being someone’s “worst nightmare,” I’ll leave that to others to determine.

            You obviously haven’t read what I have written here. From the start, I stated that Oath Keepers should stick to its stated mission, not get into political action. But, the leadership seems to have other ideas.

            Your idea of debate is different than mine. I stick with facts and logic, rather than fear and emotion. You, on the other hand, take yourself a little too seriously. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t believe in the Oath Keepers mission. As for facts and thinking, I welcome your efforts along those lines.

            David Dietrich

        3. David,
          If what you said is true, then we must declare now, at every opportunity, against anyone and everyone. If you don’t think right now is the time to declare war against Canada, you must not support the entire constitution.

    2. @ David Dietrich

      One question sir, who does the US Constitution ASSIGN the duty of Constitutional enforcement and of the enforcement of the laws of the land?

      If you know that answer, then you will know what has to be done to stop this stuff. The US Constitution does NOT allow those within the congress to do with funding what they have been doing. Those who serve within our governments – state and federal have many limits placed upon them, of which how the money is spent is one. The real problem is enforcement. As Dr. Vieira often says – and I agree – READ THE THING.

      You see, “We the People of the United States” are tasked with the enforcement of the laws of this land, including the US Constitution (the Supreme LAW) and all laws made in Pursuance thereof it; plus the state Constitutions.

      Our problem is ENFORCEMENT and if you really were concerned you would be organizing the Militia within your state because we, as the Organized Militia are the enforcers of the US Constitution, the Laws of our land that are in Pursuance thereof it, and each state’s Constitution, NOT anyone who serves within our governments.

      Preamble:
      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      The Preamble to the US Constitution says who is responsible for doing certain things within our nation. Those things are to be done to “form a more perfect Union”.

      “We the People of the United States” are to:
      – “establish Justice”
      – “insure domestic Tranquility”
      – “provide for the common defence”
      – “promote the general Welfare”
      – “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

      That is why the Second Amendment: “Second Amendment:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE SWORD IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS BUT, where I trust in God it will ever remain, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.” (caps are mine)

      Richard Henry Lee, First Senate: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

      George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

      Understand that Sheriffs are constitutionally recognized and used the Militias (us) when we were needed to assist, and quite likely trained us (state’s duty) along with other Militia officers so that they would know our abilities and strengths, where we would be best used, etc. That the Sheriffs have a whole country of reinforcements when they (us) are trained – except for a few.

      US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

      This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.

      Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.
      This clause is very straightforward. The militia of each state is taxed with the defense of the USA and her people, not just with the defense of their state; and they are to be armed with weapons that can repel any invasions bearing modern weapons of war. Congress is required to provide those military grade weapons for the militias.

      Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

      With treason and *terrorism being rampant in our nation today their actions constitutionally is critical. (* 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.)

      The framers recommended that we have our own way of manufacturing the same weapons of war that might be used against us IF those in our government went treasonous/”rogue”.
      George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

      Until WE do our duty, they will NEVER do theirs.

      1. Cal,

        The answer to your question is easy. The US Constitution “assigns” the President, through his oath of office, the duty to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” You seem to have another reading. Please show me where in the Constitution is stated, “We the People” are “tasked with the enforcement of the laws of this land, including the US Constitution (the Supreme LAW) and all laws made in Pursuance thereof it; plus the state Constitutions.”

        As for the Preamble, you misunderstand its construction and assignment. “We the People” “ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America” “in order to” do all the things you have listed. It is the purpose of the government to do all those things.

        The authority of the People precedes that granted authority, because they form the government. As a result, they also have the power of dissolution, as stated in the Declaration. But, in any case, delegation is preferred, since anarchy is generally not effective for accomplishing all the aforementioned functions.

        In any case, what does all this have to do with Article V of the US Constitution? If it is to identify another Constitutional remedy, then I support it. However, I do recommend exhausting all other options before resorting to a final solution.

        David Dietrich

        1. Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 an 16…

          The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

          15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

          16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

      2. Cal,

        I believe you are arguing with an “operator”, not a “useful idiot”. He’s tying up your time with B.S. You have clearly made the case and this guy hasn’t once answered how it is that the kakistocracy in the District – will obey any new verbiage that they haven’t engineered themselves, when they are on board with NDAA, “Patriot” Act, OsamabamaCare and who also block any attempt to bring to justice international gun-runners like Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton – whom “Shallow Sean Hannitwit” continues to refer to as a “candidate” rather than as an “un-indicted felon”. Clearly, this guy is trying to make his arguments appear legitimate by repeating the same falsehoods over and over again, the way a true student of Joseph Goebbels would do. He’s a “neutralizer”, a waste of time in my opinion. Of course, you are free to deal with him as you will, I just wanted to point out that he appears to be a complete waste of time.

    3. ” If so-called defenders of the Constitution cannot even agree on what they are defending, then what’s the point?”

      Where do you get off on saying comparing defending the complete US Constitution with making a well-informed decision on if to back an Article 5 Convention or not to?

      “Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.” John Adams

      You seem to be pretty good at attacking but not answering honest outright questions, but trying to force your OPINION down everyone’s throat.

      Remember that you are not the only psyops operator – if you are one – on THIS site, there are many who were in that field and recognize rhetoric, propaganda, and lies when they see it.

      Use regular language, facts, and when there is a question or disagreement meet that disagreement and overcome it with facts not opinions – yours and others.

      The people, and not all here are military/LE, etc are not as stupid as you would like to believe, nor are they as childlike in reasoning as the government tries to make them.

      Guess what? Most of us do not trust those who serve within our government and with good reason. They LIE. They have policies of lying even down to state LEA’s. Lies and propaganda do not get it anymore with us.

      So use FACTS, what you perceptive to be truth to make your case.

      This “call” to “Attention All Oath Keepers!

      Why the Article V Convention Must Be Embraced” is propaganda at its finest – if one would ever use that word for lies – trying to move people by force of emotion instead of treating them as the thinking people that they are.

      Stop it, because you lose all credibility with most of us doing that.

      1. Cal,

        It’s easy. Once again, you either defend and support every part of the Constitution or you do not. It has nothing to do with “making a well-informed decision.” I don’t have to “make a well-informed decision” about the applicability of the Constitution. I simply accept it (all of it), because it is the “supreme Law of the Land.” As for words, they do have meaning. And every word of the Constitution has its place in our lives.

        I don’t know what you mean by “attacking” or “answering,” but this discussion has nothing to do with my “opinion.” Embracing and understanding the entire Constitution is a prerequisite to a well-informed citizenry and viable Constitutional Republic.

        That’s funny about the psyops angle. Do you have monsters under your bed, too? What do you mean by “regular language”? Is that ebonics? Regarding facts, I’m on pretty solid foundation with my argument – the Constitution. What is yours?

        It is not my “opinion” that we must embrace the entire Constitution. Rather, the fact of the matter is that without doing so, we are not a Constitutional Republic. You want to equate stupidity with ignorance. They are different.

        In this case, an Oath Keepers leader presented his opinion regarding a Convention of States. I simply put the matter in proper perspective. My opinion is that Oath Keepers shouldn’t be a political organization anyway.

        I do not trust our political leadership, either. But, neither did our Founding Fathers. That’s the beauty of the system they created. Withdrawing from it only serves our political masters’ interests, not ours.

        So what do you “embrace,” Cal? Your bunker? Your guns? What is your “truth”? Have you taken an oath of office? What does that mean to you? I don’t “embrace” an Article V Convention anymore than Article III. But, I do “embrace” them. That’s the “propaganda” I spread. You seem to equate that with lying. Well, Cal, you can attempt your emotional sophistry, but you have no credibility to begin with. Be an Oath Keeper. Embrace the entire Constitution.

        David Dietrich

        1. The disagreement I have with you is that you keep equating calling for an Article 5 as a MANDATORY part of the US Constitution. It is not, it is an option to be used when there are changes that might be needed at the US Constitutional level.

          You keep saying that being opposed to using the Article 5 OPTION at this time – because it is NOT mandatory to use, with not supporting the US Constitution. That is NOT true.

          I support the US Constitution.

          I also am fighting for the MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS that that the US Constitution requires of the people be used before those optional ones such as an Article 5.

          The US Constitution “assigns” the President, through his oath of office, the duty to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

          That is all US Presidents Oath. But WHO is the actual enforcement arm that all US Presidents are to use? It is the Militia of the several states.

          But when we have domestic enemies and traitors in office it is STILL the people as the Militia who are to enforce it. They are the ones who remove the US President who is a traitor. Or a congressman who is corrupt, or a traitor. Etc.

          If you got the amendment through who is the lawful constitutional arm who will ENFORCE it? The Militia.

          So it matters not if you can or cannot get it through; except that if the Militia is not in place as CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED TO BE and trained, there will be no enforcement as is going on today.

  30. If we cannot uphold and defend what we have to date, How can we uphold and defend the results of a Constitutional Convention of tomorrow? Do those who push for a Convention think that Corruption, Lust, greed and foreign influence will run and hide till it’s over? So, which States have the most foreign investments? Which Politicians whether State or Federal as well as NGO’s continue to seek and favor Foreign investors? Who prefers Free Trade Zones, etc etc etc???

    1. Mr Churchill,

      As a group, we can justify fighting for something that was provided by our Founding Fathers. Now I’ll respond to your question with a question. “What is your counter to “Corruption, Lust, greed, and foreign influence”? I’m not looking for platitudes, but rather action which will achieve concrete objectives? What national movement is there to change those conditions? Is your solution really to bury your head in the sand?

      David Dietrich

        1. Mr Dawkins,

          I guess you didn’t read my response before addressing me. I stated that “we can justify fighting for something that was provided by our Founding Fathers.” Fighting means using all the tools at our disposal. That includes the entire Constitution, not just parts of it. So, once again, I’m fighting in a meaningful way, through the Convention of States Project. What are you doing?

          David Dietrich

          1. Mr. Dietrich,
            I applaud your willingness to fight for the Constitution “using all tools at our disposal”. However, because you choose one tool, does not make someone wrong because they choose another. It certainly doesn’t make them opponents of the Constitution. We (Oath Keepers) stood at Bundy Ranch, to oppose the blatant use of arms against the Bundys over a matter that should have been handled in a peaceful manner, with consideration for the Rights of all. Were you there?

            We protected small businesses in Ferguson, MO, when the “authorities” left them unprotected, and open to looting, destruction, or in peril of their lives.

            We have stood for the Constitution, as written. We have opposed those who broke their oaths to it, be they Republican, Democrat, or Independent. We have opposed the Patriot Act, which denies Creator given Rights of individuals, along with the NDAA, and its “indefinite detention” provisions. We have stood for Gun Rights, opposing any infringement on them. We stand against the collection of phone and internet data by the NSA.

            Many Oath Keepers in Connecticut and New York are standing against the measures passed in those legislatures which violate the Constitution.

            I, personally, went to Quartzite, Nev., to protest the shooting of Jose Guarena. I am storing food and supplies for the time our economy collapses. I have joined a CPT group to defend our community during any natural, or man-made, disaster. Every day I post articles on our website, alerting folks to the infringements being made on their Rights. I approve comments, such as yours, on our website. I occasionally write articles, myself. As you can see, we, at Oath Keepers, do not sit on our hands, as you implied of Jay Stang.

            There is probably more that I have left out, but I reiterate, we do not sit on our hands.

            Shorty Dawkins

          2. Mr Dawkins,

            Since I am unable to respond directly to your 22:25 post, I will address it here.

            Once again, you misrepresent my position. I do not oppose your choice of Constitutional tools, but rather I decry your opposition to other Constitutional tools. Once again, you are quibbling. If you oppose part of the Constitution, then you don’t support the entire document.

            I applaud you for the Constitutional actions you have taken. I don’t oppose them. No, I wasn’t there. It seems that according to you, that means I oppose the Constitution. Of course that’s simply illogical.

            You say on the one hand that you “have stood for the Constitution, as written.” But then, on the other, you oppose part of the Constitution. Which one is it?

            I appreciate all the actions you are taking to support some parts of the Constitution. But, I simply do not appreciate your opposition to others.

            I am glad to learn that you are preparing. We all should be bracing for the coming storm. Your involvement in a CPT is laudable. I lead one here.

            Thank you for your editing functions for Oath Keepers. Somebody has to do it.

            Finally, it’s good to know that you’re not “sitting on your hands.” That assertion resulted from your opposition to an effective Constitutional remedy. You haven’t proposed or demonstrated an alternative solution to our Federal problem.

            David Dietrich

      1. Mr. Dietrich, As you seem to have a hobby of answering questions with questions. It indicates that you have no answer. Generally, its one of several ways to avoid reality of a fact.

        1. Mr Churchill,

          You seem to have little understanding of this Constitutional discussion. You use the term, “Constitutional Convention,” as some general term for an Article V action. It’s not. You need to focus your energies better. Here’s are some more questions for your “reality”: Should we simply do nothing because bad people are everywhere? Is the world just too scary to apply Constitutional remedies? If you think that way, then why are you a member of Oath Keepers?

          David Dietrich

          1. Oh, yeah. They’ll follow the NEWLY AMENDED Constitution all right. Just like they follow the old one. Right? Your argument doesn’t pass the “smell test”. As for “doing nothing”, exposing this nation to the depredations of the criminals in power, giving them access to our founding document at this time – is ITSELF a criminal act, carried out by cronies of those very criminals who now ignore our Constitution as written – is much, much WORSE than merely doing “nothing”, which is exactly what I and many others are NOT doing. Instead, we seek to enforce the laws we have instead of passing yet “new laws” that the criminals will continue to ignore.

  31. Wow, did the author just cut and paste talking points from the John Birch Society? Oathtkeepers are really doing a disservice to its readers with this article. At least go to the Convention of States website and read for yourself. Mark Levin, Michael Farris, Sean Hannity, Tom Coburn among many other fiscal conserrvatives endorse the Convention of States. I am ex-Navy and have donated to many of the projects that Oathkeepers have stood for. Progressives are terrified of the COS because it would actually give the power BACK to the States. The smear campaign by progressives has begun in full force.

    This article is fluff with no relevant content. Read for yourself. Attend hearings in your State Legislature and find out for yourself what COS is about. Is the author fine to let the Congress and Administration continue to take every single freedom away? Very disappointed in Oathkeepers. 🙁

    1. I see the Convention of States people have marshaled their forces to respond to Mr. Stang’s article.

      WestAZGal,
      Sean Hannity is no Oath Keeper. He supports the Patriot Act, and the NDAA provisions for indefinite detentions of American citizens. I’m curious, did Tom Coburn vote against either, while he was in office? Throwing around such names does nothing to make me want to support your position.

      Shorty Dawkins

      1. That’s your choice. Don’t research COS. Let the Federal government intrude until we all live in government closets, eat government food and dream government dreams.

        I never said Sean Hannity was an Oathkeeper. I said he was a fiscal conservative. You don’t even bother reading a short, 2 paragraph post, so why on earth would you bother researching any numerous sites or books regarding our Constitutional Rights. What are YOU doing to rein in the Feds taking over our life?

        If you don’t care about it, again, that’s your choice, but some of us are have decided to fight for the freedoms of our country and push back against the big government takeover.

        1. ” At least go to the Convention of States website and read for yourself. Mark Levin, Michael Farris, Sean Hannity, Tom Coburn among many other fiscal conserrvatives endorse the Convention of States.”

          If they do not stand for ALL the US Constitution, what makes you think we should trust them? Because I personally find the Patriot Act, and the NDAA provisions for indefinite detentions of American citizens assaults on American citizens that can have deadly consequences and you want us to ignore that?

          Give me a break. Can you not back your stand with facts instead of those who supported and committed unconstitutional acts against America?

          1. Cal,

            They all likely have their own faults. The laws you reference are abominations to our Constitutional Republic. I certainly don’t want you to ignore that.

            David Dietrich

    2. “. Progressives are terrified of the COS because it would actually give the power BACK to the States.”

      May I suggest that you follow the money. I personally have found that the progressives and big money support the Article 5 convention.

      Admittedly I only put one week of research, ~ 5 or so hours a day to that. So, is there something I missed that you cam point me to that says otherwise?

      1. Cal,

        May I suggest that you follow the money. How many elected officials do you know that haven’t become wealthy “serving” in our Federal Government. I personally have found that progressives and big money support the status quo. Show me where the “big money” is with the CoS Project. What you are likely to find instead is that George Soros agrees with the John Birch Society.

        David Dietrich

    3. Every last one of those supporters you enumerate – are Trotskyite communists. Hannity, a.k.a. “Shallow Sean Hannitwit” is a neocon as is “The Great One”, his friend, Mark Levin. “Fiscal Conservatives”, you call them. Well, if they were “fiscally responsible”, why is it they advocate bigger government and increased spending on un-American “foreign adventurism” to the point where this nation is itself about to follow Greece into IMF debt slavery?

      As for “attending hearings in my state legislature”, I will report that We The People RECALLED three people from our state legislature because of their un-Constitutional, subversive actions, the senate president, John Morse, being one of those recalled.

      I might also mention that, having been a delegate to my Republican state convention four times over eight years of service as a precinct committeeman, I have seen the foul underbelly of “Republicans” who don’t seem (and it is just an appearance) to be unable to equate our legitimate form of government with their party’s namesake, always referring to our “great democracy” which VI Lenin would’ve reminded us is “the most direct route to communism”. Mob rule, tyranny of the masses ALWAYS leads to oligarchy because oligarchical collectivism is the goal of democracy. So, I have no faith in my state legislature to be able to distinguish an American form of government from the law of the jungle, this so-called “great” democracy.

      https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/11/daniel-mccarthy/springtime-for-trotsky/

      As for progressives being “terrified of COS”, that is pure nonsense. It is a well-known, published FACT that George Soros’s agents in the various WolfPac organizations are SALIVATING at the prospect of hijacking a COS. I would have to ask how it is that you could NOT be aware of that. Care to explain?

  32. An article 5 convention is a COS not a con-con. A COS IS limited to suggesting amendments to our current constitution THAN the FEW suggestions that might be suggested by a COS must be ratified by 3/4 of all states. A COS is a good thing a con-con is not, just as cheap and inexpensive ARE two different things so are a COS vs a con-con. see http://www.conventionofstates.com/

    1. Partswizard,
      Go lookup the definition of the term “constitutional convention” in any law dictionary.

      You will find you have been lied to. The convention authorized in Article V is, by definition, a constitutional convention.

      Whoever told you otherwise is either uninformed on this topic, or dishonest.

      1. Mr Brown,

        You obviously have not taken the time to read and understand the definition of Constitutional Convention in Black’s Law Dictionary yourself. Let me help you. Here’s the definition: “A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.” If you will notice, the authority in Article V makes no mention of “framing, revising, or amending” the Constitution. Rather, it is merely a “Convention for proposing Amendments.” Therefore, it is not a Constitutional Convention. If you can’t see this enormous difference, then you really have no business in this discussion.

        David Dietrich

  33. This CoS is a trojan horse. Most of the states that join it have legislators who have not uphold the constitution in the first place! A CoS would merely give them justification for their treason. More importantly, a convention of states would almost immediately turn into a constitutional convention, which is inside the trojan. Does anyone really trust a constitutional convention under obama-the-foreign-traitor’s watch?? He spent four years breaking everything that worked and these last 4 years fixing everything he broke! This is a good article and I hope you all see the truth in it. By the way, several states backed out of the CoS, once they learned what damage its agenda could do.

    1. Marlene,

      I refer you to my response to Mr Brown. You make an unsubstantiated claim that a Convention for proposing Amendments will become a Constitutional Convention. I could just as easily state that a bill becomes a law without passage by both Houses of Congress. You seem to be just another who is ready to blame others but without any solutions.

      David Dietrich

  34. We must remain vigilant against Big Government riding in but I believe a CoS is past due. Let’s have it and make changes to the good. Limiting the power of Big Government is only a starting point. The number of states required to pass any changes is our safeguard. Let’s move forward….

  35. The fact that we curently have an out of control runaway convention in the form of POTUS, SCOTUS and Congress, fear of the unknown shou;d certainly not overshadow the known. Article V offers two ways to propose amendments to the constitution, only one has been used. Has anyone considered that congress does not need to control a convention, they can simply propose amendments any time? Rather than fear a convention called by the states, maybe we should grab the lifeline the frames handed us. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Justice Wiliam Johnson regarding what he believed was a Supreme Court overstepping it’s authority. It is a lengthy letter, but here is a portion:

    This practice of Judge Marshall, of travelling out of his case to prescribe what the law would be in a moot case not before the court, is very irregular and very censurable. I recollect another instance, and the more particularly, perhaps, because it in some measure bore on myself. Among the midnight appointments of Mr. Adams, were commissions to some federal justices of the peace for Alexandria. These were signed and sealed by him, but not delivered. I found them on the table of the department of State, on my entrance into office, and I forbade their delivery. Marbury, named in one of them, applied to the Supreme Court for a mandamus to the Secretary of State, (Mr. Madison) to deliver the commission intended for him. The court determined at once, that being an original process, they had no cognizance of it; and therefore the question before them was ended. But the Chief Justice went on to lay down what the law would be, had they jrurisdiction of the case, to wit: that they should command the delivery. The object was clearly to instruct any other court having the jurisdiction, what they should do if Marbury should apply to them. Besides the impropriety of this gratuitous interference, could anything exceed the perversion of law? For if there is any principle of law never yet contradicted, it is that delivery is one of the essentials to the validity of the deed. Although signed and sealed, yet as long as it remains in the hands of the party himself, it is in fieri only, it is not a deed, and can be made so only by its delivery. In the hands of a third person it may be made an escrow. But whatever is in the executive offices is certainly deemed to be in the hands of the President; and in this case, was actually in my hands, because, when I countermanded them, there was as yet no Secretary of State. Yet this case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversion on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice.

    and in his conclusion: But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force.

    You see, neither congress nor the Supreme Court was to ever have the final say…WE ALWAYS HAD THE POWER to correct a government that excedes it’s constitutional bounds. It is past time to do this. Please support conventionofstates.com

  36. As I understand it the purpose of article V is to BYPASS the congress. It takes 2/3 of the states to call for an article V convention and to pass any amendment it would take 3/4 of the states to be in agreement (38 would have to agree). Do you think the house or senate would vote for term limits on themselves? You asked “Do you trust John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and President Obama?” The answer is an absolute HELL NO which is another reason for bypassing them and giving the power BACK to the people. Are you aware that originally the senators were elected by the STATE legislators and were accountable to the same? Today they are elected by popular vote and are accountable to no one. I for one support a convention of the states.

    1. Indeed, the original 13th…If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kin what ever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such a person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them. – Journal of the Senate. Should one wonder why it was buried and/or not enforced, just look around from back then to date. A very big reason as to why we should not have a Convention.

      1. The ability to have convention is to reign in the power through the power of the purse. The states have to get a majority of votes to support any of it, and if a vast majority of states were run by politicians who hated the constitution I would be worried, however a majority of states leaders and governors are now for reigning in gov’t and drying up the corrupt elements and prosecutiong others. Currently there is no way to unshake the establishment puppets, by default the federal system is 100% unconstitutional in their behavior, which backs up the premise that the Constitution is not a law that stands on its own if good people aren’t willing to defend its merrits. But the worst thing that could happen is new restrictions are put on federal system that strengthin the values of constitutional limited gov’t, and than that is also blatently ignored. I however don’t believe a new fuedalship will be written into a whole new positive rights document, the majority of states would not support that. Another thing is there has to be a set agenda, this can’t be strayed from when the process starts nationally, for if it does the system by law collapses without any resulting amendments. I agree that the process may be futile in the end if the new amendments are simply ignored as is the rest of the constitution. However it will never ever become a runaway constitutional convention! So I support COS, but I also support alternatives as well.

        1. “It will never be a runaway convention”?

          Considering how wide open the COS application for a convention is, you may have a point. They make no effort to restrict the convention, so everything is on the table. There is nowhere left to runaway to.

          The COS application pretends to be limited, but the carefully-chosen words it contains create an unlimited convention.

          For example, it says the convention shall impose fiscal restraints. Now show me, if you can, where those restraints are required to be lower than current spending levels? Can’t find it? Does that mean they could set the levels HIGHER?

          What about limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government? The Constitution already does that. This amendment proposes to replace those limits. Would those new limits be an increase or a decrease in power and jurisdiction? It does not say. It is a BLANK CHECK, placed in the hands of the convention.

          COS talks about calling a limited convention, but they do not do so. A runaway convention is not possible when you place no meaningful limits on the convention.

    2. Mr Time,

      You call for “No Changes to the Constitution,” but then ask for “the original Constitution including the 13th Amendment.” Which Constitution do you support? The original document? The original plus Bill of Rights (ie with “changes”)? The original plus Bill of Rights plus seventeen additional Amendments (ie with “changes”)? Where is the logic in your argument? Do you really advocate for no more “changes”?

      David Dietrich

      1. Whatever comes of it, America will be lost unless We the People destroy her enemies before they can use “the system” to further destroy “the system,” as they’ve been doing since Lincoln usurped Federal control and sullied the Constitution with his ideas for “reconstructing” America into the United States of America, Inc and reducing her sovereign State Citizens into the serfdom of docile and compliant U.S. citizens/Federal Franchisees that you are today.

        I say “you” because I don’t subscribe to Lincoln’s notion of “Rule of Law” as imposed by corrupt politicians and precedent. American Jurisprudence is a scam that most Americans have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

        Live III or Die!

        p.s. The people of today are the dregs of humanity as compared to the Founding Fathers. It is retarded to think that modern “americans” wouldn’t change OUR Constitution to serve THEIR unAmerican desires for solidifying their New Face of America.

        p.p.s. It is easier to PREVENT further destruction than to cure it. I mean, we’ve been saddled under the 14th Amendment for 147 years and counting.

        It is LOOOONG past time that we DEconstruct the REconstruction!

      2. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution (Bill of Rights) were not Add-ons (in other words, added after the Constitution was signed.) They were added to the unsigned original because it was deemed to have been incomplete. The delegates insisted that the freedoms guaranteed us by God be further delineated and most importantly, that the federal government be further limited to its infringement thereof.

  37. After the Republican landslide in the last elections, we now have more conservative state legislatures than there have been in a very long time. I fail to see how amendments, such as those that would limit the time served by federal congressmen (to take away power from the likes of the Mitch McConnell, John Boehners and Harry Reids) could have a bad outcome. Ratification by 3/4 of the states, when they are more conservative, is a very good protection against unwanted outcomes. Perhaps the author has missed it completely but out constitution is under constant attack. The president seemingly changes it at his whim, ditto for congress and the supreme court. If something isn’t done we will lose our country entirely. Our framers gave us a solution… I certainly didn’t see one advanced by the author here….

    1. “After the Republican landslide in the last elections, we now have more conservative state legislatures than there have been in a very long time.”

      Lol, obviously you have not been paying attention. The same policies go on no matter if it is the Democrats or the Republicans in office. The truth of the matter is that any or either of those that serve could get outside protection (because the Secret Service is corrupt, the FBI, CIA, DHS, TSA, NSA, etc are ALL CORRUPT AND MOSTLY TREASONOUS that none of those could be TRUSTED to protect a true American, and then from the authority granted to them call for arrests and charges pressed against those who serve for the multiple,and various crimes they have committed; for many would include *treason and **terrorism against the USA and the American people.

      *http://www.shastadefense.com/Dare-Call-It-Treason-21.pdf

      ** 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

      Then they can be held until we can implement this:

      Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: “When in the presence of two witnesses to the same overt act or in an open court of law if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason, and upon conviction you will be taken by the posse to the nearest busy intersection and at high noon hung by the neck until dead…The body to remain in state till dusk as an example to anyone who takes his oath of office lightly.

    2. You are confusing Republicans with conservatives. More states have republican majorities, but how many can you name that have conservative majorities?

  38. There is NO change to the Constitution with an Article V Convention, only the opportunity to propose Amendments. Congress is NOT involved except to set a time and place for a Convention. 38 States are needed to Ratify any Amendments.

    1. Susan: The trouble is that regardless of any instructions or strictures, once the CoS is convened the delegates can do anything they want. Example ? The delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention went there with strict instructions to do one thing and one thing only – improve the articles of confederation. Instead, they threw the articles out the window and started from scratch.Don’t you think that every Marxist/Collectivist, corporate facist,Statist and public criminal in the country would be fighting to be a delegate? How would a raft of new laws stop a lawless government? No, the CoS is not the answer. The rightful remedy lies with us, that we become a living, breathing affirmation of the laws of nature and nature’s god.

      1. False. The delegates to the 1787 Convention did NOT throw out the Articles of Confederation. The delegates merely wrote a new Constitution for consideration by the States. It was the States who threw out the Articles in favor of the new Constitution. The delegates can do absolutely nothing except propose amendments each of which will have to be ratified before becoming law.

        This whole article is much ado over nothing..

        1. Mr Smith,

          Finally, someone has the wherewithal to state the facts of the original Convention! Thank you! There is more to the story, but your statement sets the record straight.

          As for the “whole article being much ado over nothing,” if you mean the original posting by an Oath Keepers board member, I disagree. It has shown us that we are not unified as a group to identify what it means to be an Oath Keeper. I am discouraged by the number of members who don’t seem to support the entire Constitution.

          David Dietrich

        2. Yet Madison himself admits in Federalist #40 that the 1787 convention exceeded its authority by creating a new ratification process, making the new constitution much easier to ratify.

          Such a precedent is now being looked to, with liberals suggesting that a modern convention should throw out the current ratification process, and replaced with ratification by a simple majority vote of the people.

          Precedents have consequences.

      2. Norton-you are incorrect. The states called the convention that wrote our Constitution and the states ratified it to replace the Articles of Confederation. Each delegate had orders from their state and they did not disobey them. And just to set the record straight-Once a COS is called again each state will select delegates who are under the jurisdiction of their state. A number of states are working to pass laws that would include jail time should a delegate disobey just because of people like you who are scared to death of using the Constitution itself to save our country. But since Article V is in the Constitution and it clearly states “amendments” being proposed, NO they can’t just do anything they want. The ratification process is exactly the same as when Congress proposes amendments. We have passed amendments before and there was no panic so why now? And since 32 states have already had a couple of meetings to discuss the process and how it would be run-I seriously doubt there is a basis for the idea of a runaway convention. Rules will be set by delegates before the convention as well. The delegates will propose amendments and then they will vote on whether to send each one to the states. They don’t PASS they PROPOSE.

    2. “Congress is not involved except to set the time and place”?

      That would be news to Congress.

      “Congress has not, in general, embraced the theory that its role is purely ministerial or clerical, and that is work is done once a convention has been called. On the contrary, it has traditionally asserted broad and substantive authority over the full range of the Article V Convention’s procedural and institutional aspects from start to finish.” – Congressional Research Service report #R42589, p.18

    3. I support your comment but don’t know how to post an independent comment.

      You have some misperceptions about an Article V convention. One it is NOT run by Congress. The only thing Congress does is officially call for one upon application of 2/3 of the states then they are finished. This part of Article V was entered explicitly to have some procedure that the states could keep the country honest if Congress was out of control and tyrannical. The framers certainly would not have put Congress in control of that procedure.

      Second, the convention is limited to amendments to the Constitution, and the delegates are limited to whatever their legislature limits them to. I suppose it could be expanded somewhat but If the delegates go to far off the reservation the legislature simply recalls them. Plus they have a long way to go to match the over 11,000 amendments proposed by Congress. Nothing happens until 2/3 of the states agree on amendments and then 3/4 of the states ratify. A so-called runaway convention is a fantasy.

      The purpose of the Convention is as you hint though for the opposite reason. The federal government IS all powerful and this is the ONLY way to rectify that. You also say the federal government doesn’t follow the constitution now so why bother with amendments. Really????.

  39. Here’s another reason to oppose the CoS. Article V of the Constitution has become ineffective simply because of the 17th Amendment which changed the means of electing US Senators. At the time of Article V, US Senators were electec by State’s Legislatures. And Congress , at the time, was a body of two houses, one of the People and one of the States (the Senate). When Article V refers to “Congress shall call a convention. ” , it is refering to both the House of Representatives and the House of the States. The Senate is no longer a house of the States and therefore, Article V has no standing.

    1. One of Mark Levin’s proposed “Liberty Amendments” is to retract the 17th Amendment, thereby restoring the States’ representation in the Congress, which as of now there is none. Under the current arrangement Senators are not beholden to the People or the States, only to lobbyists and campaign contributors. The stated purpose of the COS is to limit the power of the federal government.Retracting the 17th Amendment would go a long ways toward restoring power to the States.

      1. We just need to see who was behind the 17th Amendment to know we need to repeal it. It passed 1913: William Taft was the twenty-seventh President (1909-1013) and tenth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (1921-1930). Taft was the only Chief Executive in the nation’s history to serve first as President and then as Chief Justice. Thus, he became the only person in history to ever head two branches of the federal government — the executive and the judicial. It was during the Taft presidency that Congress passed the 16th Amendment to levy an income tax on the American people, and the 17th amendment. To make things worse Woodrow Wilson was elected president 1913-1921….that mess needs cleaning up!

    2. Gary,

      Your statement is an immensely thought provoking concept.

      Upon contemplating this most intriguing subject, I must concur with your analysis; the Congress as presently constituted, by way of the 17th Amendment, has no authority to call an Article V Convention and leaves Article V ineffectual.

  40. The first Convention of States that I’m aware in our American History is when the Articles of Confederation was scrapped in favor of a Constitution. The lesson was learned, as, in “yes”, the entire US Constitution could be tossed in favor of another under the right circumstances. Also noted is that there is no time frame, it could drag on for years. Yep, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul both visited Goldman in New York seeking campaign donations.

    1. There has never been an Article V convention of states. The Constitution was written at a “general convention” and Article V was not in existence prior to that. Under Article V any convention would only be able to propose amendments (as it states) not write a whole new Constitution.

      1. The fundimentals of the Constitution are the first 10 rights. These are the piss target of both established parties now. Heard Jeb critique potus in news on his NRA speech, He would put major restrictions on 1st and 2nd and all of the rBill of Rights. His dad did more damage to the 2nd amendment than Clinton did. The system has been terribly corrupt for the entire 20th century and exponentially so this century so far. There is no getting these folks back to the constitution. And maybe COS won’t matter to them either, they may just say “hay need little educational thing you all did there, now go home and shutup.” It has to be remembered that the states need to make clear there is no f around with the process to allow it to get away. I know there is also fear about pay-to-play on the state and local level. This is a factor as can be seen with common-core and ICLEA planning etc where even at city level there’s fascist lobbying occuring. However there is a major awareness to the two-headed rat and its neo-fuedal handlers, I would find it much more difficult for them to corrupt a very important process as this. They have the ability to nudge policy on items that seem mundane, such as urban planning codes and school testing. But those who are a part of the constitutional process are doing so becuase they are keenly in support of upholding the constitution by adding more restrictions of gov’t not less, it would be very difficult to pursuade the majority of them against this!

  41. Jay Stang is all kinds of wrong on this. First and foremost – There have been many CoS since the founding of this country. Secondly – When 2/3 of the States petition for a Convention. Congress has ONLY two functions in the total process. One is call the convention, second is determine the method of ratification. Nothing less, nothing in between, nothing more. It is a disservice to everyone when bad info is spread.
    When the FED was designed and authorized to serve the States they realized the potential for it to grow and become a central self serving all encompassing entity.
    Article V was the our Founding Fathers means to allow the States to maintain rule and sovereignty. This is part of the checks and balance built in to the Constitution. When you have a Government gone wild, we see it today, the States can step up and cross check it and put it down if necessary.
    This FED GOV does not control the States; the States and the People are the sovereign and need to remember and practice that. Yes Article V allowing for a Convention of States is the means by law of the land and peaceful method to maintain and “Keep This Republic”.

    1. Article V provides two methods for the proposal and two methods for the ratification of an amendment.
      – An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate OR

      – a national convention called by Congress at the request of 2/3 of the state legislatures. This last procedure has never been used.

      The amendment MAY THEN be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures (38 states) OR by special conventions called in 3/4 of the states. The 21st amendment was the only one to be adopted in this way.

      However, IT IS THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO DECIDE WHICH METHOD OF RATIFICATION WILL BE USED.

      “Article V was the our Founding Fathers means to allow the States to maintain rule and sovereignty. This is part of the checks and balance built in to the Constitution. ”

      Actually, no, since the states created the US Constitution at the behest of the people – and it IS made clear in the Preamble to the US Constitution that it is “We the People” who ultimately created it and as such control it. The general (federal) government was given specific, put-into-writing duties and powers and they can LAWFULLY take no others.

      The problem is that those domestic enemies of the USA who serve within the states do NOT exercise their lawful power as the creation of the people, and the creator of the general (federal) government.

      The problem that we now face is that those serving within the states are not doing their lawful duty as required. It is still a problem of enforcement by the people to those who serve within our governments.

      Already the federal government, ALONG WITH THOSE WHO SERVE within state governments BOTH implement unconstitutional laws and regulations against the people who control both types of Constitutions – the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution.

      But the biggest problem really is that the enforcers of those Constitutions, and the laws of our land, are the people themselves, not anyone who serves in any position within the state or federal governments.

      Since it is enforcement that really is the true issue, how do you expect to enforce any Amendment you plan to get through if you cannot already enforce what we already have on the books?
      How are you going to teach the people to enforce those laws on those who serve within our governments?
      Are You yourself going to bother to learn how the people are actually the enforcing arm of the government as provided by the US Constitution?

      If there is no lawful enforcement as required by the US Constitution and each state Constitution then there will be unlawful (color of law) enforcement as we are already having, except more of the same.

      1. Precisely!

        “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

      2. Comment is giving me something to think about, though I still think the states have a role to play (states made up of people who share common goal of basic freedoms in the Bill of Rights), the states should be able to excersize limits on the federal system. That being said your comments on enforcement are very true. Everyone can pat eachother on the back if some new fancy document is written, while people still have peashooters but those who need the limits have magatons at their disposal. Fancy documents are easy to burn or simply ignore.

    2. I still greatly respect Sen. Mike Lee, but I am supprised his answers regarding COS in interviews are not well thought out. To be fair he said he’s open but not yet fully made up his mind either way. He’s leaning towards being agaisnt it but arguments in favor of it he’s open to precisely because of how disregarded the Constitution currently is. I’ve usually trusted Mike over Ted Cruz. I haven’t made up my mind yet about Rand Paul but I trust him a bit more than Ted as well. Ted’s statements about it being the duty of Americans to follow the law regarding his getting the family onto the ACA was deeply troubling to me. Bonhoeffer went out of his way to claim that there are many instances were laws passed are wrong or unjust or flat out evil, and it is the perogative to not uphold or follow the laws. Now the consequenses can be horrible for those who choose to not follow an unjust law. I would respect Ted if he stated there’s no getting around the consequences of disobeying any dictate. But to claim it is the duty of the citizen to follow all laws, that changed my mind on him imidiately, far more than his wife’s employement.

  42. I think we need an amendment mandating term limits of 8 years for all elected officials from local government to the Federal government

  43. I believe there is a lot of a misunderstanding taking place here. Agreed that there are two ways to call for a Convention of States, either at the behest of 2/3 of both Houses of Congress or at the behest of 34 State Legislatures filing Applications for a Convention, and once filed Congress must call for the Convention to be held, no choice in the matter. The Convention is under the control of the States who propose Amendments to the Constitution, which must be debated and once accepted, returned to the States for ratification by 38 State Legislatures prior to it becoming part of the Constitution. The content of the proposal is governed by the Legislatures, not the Congress, the voting is done by delegates sent by the State Legislatures aka Commissioners whom are under strict control of the Legislature of the State sending the Commissioner, each State has but one vote, That is what is presented in Article V of the Constitution. No variance is acceptable under any circumstance, For further information please refer to the following, http://constitution.i2i.org/files/2015/03/Campaign-v.-Article-V.pdf

    1. That is how I understand it also. So it seems obvious the 38 or more states must make sure they have the majority of delegates committed with plenty room for error if elections can reverse their majority. No sense calling one if the votes are not there. The upside is that the delegates are going to have to come back home and face the music since they are state.

    2. You are so sure you can predict the future of a convention. Yet most of your claims here are not supported by Article V. In fact, it is silent on those issues.

      This concerned James Madison, who at the conclusion of the 1787 convention, felt the Article V convention contained a great flaw: that the details of the convention were not spelled out in the Constitution.

      The Supreme Court has said it is up to Congress to define such unspecified details. For example, in Dillon vs. Gloss (1921)
      “As a rule, the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require, and Article V is no exception to the rule.”

  44. This is Article V of the US Constitution:

    “Article 5.

    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”

    Simply Stated:
    The Congress, when 2/3 of both the House and Senate deem it necessary, can propose amendments which, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths of the state, the Constitution will become amended accordingly.

    or

    The Congress shall, when 2/3 of the State Legislatures make an application to Congress for a convention, call a Convention for proposing amendments, called a convention of States, in which the states propose amendments which when submitted by Congress to all the states, and when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths of the state, the Constitution will become amended accordingly..

    Following historical precedent, the State Legislatures will appoint representatives to attend the convention to propose amendments – with each state having one vote – and, 2/3 of the states must agree on the proposed amendment. 3/4 of the states must ultimately approve the amendment before it becomes a part of the Constitution.

    1. ” which when submitted by Congress to all the states”. . .That is false. Nothing indicates that Congress is in the middle of the process. When the convention produces proposed amendments, said amendments go to the States for ratification. Congress has no control in the process.

      1. PRSmith:
        The Constitution reads: “as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;”

        From that I deduce and I also will add it is historical fact that Congress submits the proposed amendment for ratifiation and determines the method of ratification”

        And, in case you missed it, I’m a surporter of COS.

        1. Mr Middleton,

          I thank you for your COS support. However, I must agree with Mr Smith in this case. Your “historical fact” is based on the historical Amendment process, not the Amendment Convention process. The fact here is that the Constitution gives Congress no interposition authority regarding Amendments proposed by a Convention.

          David Dietrich

          1. DDietrich:
            Please, go back to the Constitution, and start reading again where it starts: “in either case . . . ” and tell me how my comment regarding ratification is incorrect.

          2. Mr Middleton,

            I would like to respond to your statement below. There are only two specified roles for Congress in the Convention for proposing Amendments process. They are 1) to “call a Convention for proposing Amendments,” and 2) propose the “Mode of Ratification.”

            If you “go back to the Constitution, and start reading again where it starts: ‘in either case…,'” you will find that there is no mention of proposed Amendments being first submitted to Congress and then resubmitted to the States for Ratification.

            David Dietrich

  45. I cannot understand the fear of an Art.5, Convention of the states. Once reasons are communicated among the states and a convention is the determined course of action. Should some state(s) try to inject or “hi-jack” the convention into a different direction, for what ever purpose. I see it as quite simple, one course of action. Get up and walk out. Some rouge states try to use for a purpose not agreed previously, walk out and the convention will cease. What is the problem, We need this course of action for a horribly “undone” Constitution.

    1. Once again – as I asked in an earlier comment – Please show me 1 (one) state out of 50 that are enforcing and following the US Constitution and their state Constitution. That is all I ask.

      Because when you are asking those either ignorant of the US Constitution and that state’s Constitution, or those domestic enemies of both, or those bought-and-sold “representatives within both, OR those TREASONOUS scum to have and hold an HONEST Article 5 and fulfill the reasons they are sent there you are asking for a MIRACLE.

      IF they are not doing their lawful duty in ANY of the states – and they are NOT – why in the world would you expect them to be a moral, upright, HONEST lawful state representative of the peoples wishes there at an Article 5 Convention?

      Please answer with a really good reason for that expectation – though truly I doubt if you can – or show me a way you, me, all Oathkeepers can go in with them with us armed to the teeth to see that the peoples requirements are carried out because it will not happen otherwise.

      Show me ONE (1) Constitutional state – under their own state Constitution, and at least 80% constitutional under the Constitution of the United States of America.

      Show me more then 15 judges – federal and/or state – that are lawful in fulfilling their duties, that are NOT domestic enemies of the USA, or outright TRAITORS to the USA and the American people occupying positions anywhere within the USA. I can think of 4. Can anyone else think of any?

      WE all know that our representatives – state and federal – are NOT constitutional though some are starting to know their lawful duties and will escape being prosecuted and, hopefully, hung if found guilty.

      One thing else you all might consider. If TRAITORS/domestic enemies to the US Constitution and the American people already did some damage by unconstitutional actions – what makes you think they are binding? From all the studies I have done of our founders, the US Constitution, they are NOT BINDING but are “NULL AND VOID”.

      If that is so, why do you feel we need an Article 5 at this particular time when we are surrounded by TRAITORS, when if instead we ENFORCE OUR US CONSTITUTION AND EACH STATES CONSTITUTION, CLEAN UP ELECTION FRAUD so that the peoples voice is heard as it is REQUIRED to be, and then put in the balance budget, term limits and this (/big grin)

      Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: “When in the presence of two witnesses to the same overt act or in an open court of law if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason, and upon conviction you will be taken by the posse to the nearest busy intersection and at high noon hung by the neck until dead…The body to remain in state till dusk as an example to anyone who takes his oath of office lightly.” (revised at bottom)

      Only we will not call it Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381.

      Much of what has been done is unlawful, treasonous, and an outright attack on the USA, its type of government, and on the American people.

      The real answer is ENFORCEMENT, of which “WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AS THE MILITIA ARE THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED ENFORCING ARM.

      *revised Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  46. This is something I have worried about, Calling for a Article V Convention for allegedly Fixing the corruption in DC? What if as now those who are corrupted and desire More Powers upon the People…ARE in CHARGE of such a convention, they could eliminate the US Constitution, and Destroy the Republic for ever. They could Declare Obama King, their selves as Lords and so forth, they can due to their majority of corrupted leaders in DC Make all of us their slaves they as our masters. There is Great danger with such a convention with so many Immoral and unethical and proven liars and pure wickedness in DC. Beware.

  47. We are Oath Keepers, defending the Constitution, Right? Unfortunately, if we are to be Men of our Word, we can not pick and choose the parts of the Constitution we will defend. I do not want to see an Article V Convention, but it is there, for better or worse.

    Brian Gieryk
    Oath Keeper
    SGT, 27BN, Idaho Lightfoot Militia

    1. @ ke6iyc, “I do not want to see an Article V Convention, but it is there, for better or worse.”

      What does taking and KEEPING the Oath have to do with agreeing if one should or should not have an Article 5 convention? Nothing.

      The Oath is to support and defend the US Constitution. The Article 5 is one of the choices given to the people of how to modify or do away with the US Constitution.

      It is a CHOICE given within the US Constitution as a way of modifying it, not a requirement that one HAS to agree with modifying it. It is not breaking the Oath to support calling for one or to not support calling for one.

      It is a personal choice that if one feels that the people who would be chosen to “represent” the people in an Article 5 Convention is the type of people one would want guarding ones back. I find none of those who are representatives as one I would want at my back, so I do not want an Article 5 convention. I do not believe that they are NOT bought & sold, not corrupt, and very few are not outright treasonous against the USA and the American people, and the people of the state they may represent – depending on the federal congressional choices they make.

      Your Oath is good – if you took one and are keeping it – if you do NOT want an Article 5. It is also still good if you do. Though I would say research the people who might represent you and see if they are someone you would want guarding your backside first.

      1. Cal,

        Here again you make a case that it is okay to choose not to use or agree with all of the Constitution, but in previous missives you contend that certain aspects are MANDATORY. So, for you, choosing in one case is okay, but not being able to choose in others is also okay? That’s illogical.

        I support EVERY aspect of the Constitution, whether or not I take personal action along every line. There is never a GOOD time to Amend the Constitution. It will ALWAYS be some time in the future.

        An a la carte Constitution is not a Constitution. In the words of Mr keciyc, “if we are to be Men of our Word, we can not pick and choose the parts of the Constitution we will defend.”

        David Dietrich

        1. Usurpations are NOT legitimate – no matter HOW MANY ignorant citizens comply with it.

          The Constiituion was only good when it served to protect the People, and not the Federal government.

          1. Mr Ent,

            So what is your point? Are you an Oath Keeper? What does that mean to you?

            David Dietrich

            [Associate Editor’s note:
            Mr. Dietrich, I am running out of patience with your constant referring of people who disagree with you as not supporting the Constitution. If you persist in that phony idea, I will completely shut you off. Your use of Saul Alinsky tactics is gaining you no support.

            Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor]

          2. In response:

            I do not entrust the same ideals and values that are embodied in our founding documents to be reflected in society today, and certainly not in any “majority.” I am prepared to stand in defense of what America was intended to be and against what reconstruction has allowed her to become. Make of that what you will.

            I support and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as ratified 12/15/1791 and intended by the founding fathers. My oath is to God Who ordained America’s birth and will preside over her resurrection.

            The united States of America [the condition of our several States agreeing to serve and abide individual sovereignty under a single standard] is a free nation of free men bound by duty to God and country; the [original] Constitution/Bill of Rights being the scriptural marriage thereof.

            Conversely, the United States of America [the corporate identity] is a Federal Democracy which grants licenses and permits to its compliant citizens/franchisees.

            I am for “America” – NOT the “United States”

            Sic Semper Tyrannis

          3. “I do not entrust the same ideals and values that are embodied in our founding documents to be reflected in society today, and certainly not in any “majority.””

            Exactly! Isn’t it great that we are NOT a democracy, but are a Constitutional Republic and not under the will of the “majority”?

            Molon Labe! God Bless!

            If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

        2. “Here again you make a case that it is okay to choose not to use or agree with all of the Constitution,…”

          Okay, you are lying. Never have I said to support part of the US Constitution.

          What I said, is that one is not going against the US Constitution if they do not want an Article 5 Convention. An Article 5 Convention is NOT a REQUIREMENT. It is an OPTION if the people feel they need to change it.

          So when you want to discuss things with me, do NOT try propaganda and lies – use facts. If your FACTS are correct then they will stand on there own without using that BS.

          If I am wrong, and occasionally I am as all people are, when I verify your “facts” I will see that I am and I will admit it. But so far that has not happened.

          I support the US Constitution as the framers created it, with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

          What you do not seem to understand is that “We the People of the United States” are the last word on all actions of those who SERVE within our governments. But it is important that you learn that. Because without enforcement there is not much you can do. If you do not know how to constitutionally enforce it, and it seems like you do not, then you are a part of the problem.

          Enforce what we have, then when we have constitutionally minded representatives in office, we change what we might need to.

          Truly, what is spent is not lawful according to the US Constitution which says EXACTLY what they can use the money for. So it IS an enforcement problem, not an Article 5.

          Thomas Jefferson:“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

          George Washington: “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

          Examples

          Thomas Jefferson: “The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.”

          Thomas Jefferson: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”

          They are forbidden to keep a standing military for many reasons listed here;

          James Madison, Father of the US Constitution: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

          James Madison: “The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature … the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”

          George Washington: “The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”

          US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 12: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.

          Clause 12 specifies that there shall be no military beyond that of two years. The Militia of each state is charged with our nations defense here within the USA until and unless the congress has declared war and a “standing” military is raised.

          Those that serve within our governments – state and federal – are forbidden to create governmental professional law enforcement, and instead are REQUIRED to use the Militia of the several states.

          Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.

          Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

          The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:

          — Enforce the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it (Supreme LAW) and each state’s Constitution (highest LAW in the state except where it conflicts with the US Constitution),
          — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
          — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
          — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

          Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

          Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

          George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

          Military is extremely expensive – trillions. Governmental professional law enforcement is also expensive and both are unlawful.

          The organized (trained) Militia is how all this is implemented by the people.

    2. … and Article V was for the remedying of errors in the Constitution. None of the framers claimed it was for reining in the federal government.

      Our problems are not because of errors in the Constitution. They are because of ignoring the Constitution.

      The framers said Article VI is for reining in oath-breakers.

      1. I think that is not entirely true. The discussion at the convention was that Congress could not be expected to propose amendments limiting itself when it had overstepped or found to be in need of restraint. We have reached a point at which the only constitutional way to limit the over-reach of the out-of-control Federal government is through the actions of dedicated patriots.

    3. Right-On, Brian! Yay 27BN, from other side of the state. US- and states’ Constitutions based on natural law, morality, principle > 10Cs. Best life practises for self, family, and others.

  48. An A5CoS can ONLY be for proposing amendments to the Constitution.
    Where does it say is will be run by congress?
    It will be run by those states who attend.
    They will vote for a “president” of the convention, and then hear proposed amendments and then vote for them or against them.
    Those amendments that are sent to the states, will have, I believe seven years to ratify said amendments.
    Do be put off by those who do not understand what can happen, by scare tacrtics of what cannot happen.

  49. It is my understanding that a “National Convention” called by at least 34 state legislatures can keep the convention limited to single or preset issues. There are opinions that claim different and that it can be opened for anything. The ideal situation would be to insure the legality that only issues agreed upon will be allowed before it is called.

    1. The application the States submit to Congress specify three topics for possible proposed amendments: term limits, fiscal responsibility and limits on federal power. If a proposed amendment emerges and it falls in those guidelines, Congress will determine the mode of ratification. If an amendment were proposed outside of those three topics (don’t see how that can happen), Congress is not required to determine a mode of ratification…it dies right there.

  50. The state legislatures can maintain control of the convention by also amending their state constitutions to state that they will not join a National Convention that is not limited to agreed upon proposals with no other changes allowed that could open it to a free-for-all.

  51. So, by this article, you’re suggesting we continue on the current course? I don’t think so. With the CoS the state legislatures would be in control of the proceedings, not Congress. I’ll take my chances with a 3/4 consensus of the states to ratify proper and prudent law to get the Federal leviathan back in its box where it belongs.

  52. Fellow Citizens: Please keep this in mind. Article V presents two paths, the latter being completely independent of any substantive input from the federal government. V is in the Constitution; i.e., it Is the remedy our constitution provides for dealing with a rogue central government. (This second path was heavily debated at the framing) Our Constitution did not give us judicial review. It did not give us a congress that violates it. It did not give us a chief executive that usurps and seizes power outside its limitations. But it anticipated all of the above. Because of that, It gave us Article V, with the convention of the states, and that second path was included precisely for a situation like the one we are in. If the states reach the 2/3 requirement for the convention, it will be precisely because they are fed-up with D.C. And remember, any proposed amendment requires 3/4 OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES to be ratified. It is highly unlikely that the agents of the Feds could hijack it and pass anything. I also leave you with this thought, per Mark Levin: An illegitimate constitutional convention takes place each time the SCOTUS meets and all too often renders a new essentially unchallengeable ruling based on the sentiments of five unelected, politically appointed people. That is the status quo. We are already dealing with a high speed run-away “convention”. The Article V state path is the Constitution’s own prescription for the people, through orderly process in their state legislatures, to re-establish itself as the supreme law of the land.

  53. Like it or not the Convention of States will move forward, the issue is of how to protect COS from being controlled by corporate agendas. One forum for COS is no amendments, but to undo what is considered Unconstitutional Laws.
    Then there are many different opportunities to build something honest. The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating.” -Thomas Jefferson
    “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.”
    -James Madison
    Now this being said it is clear that those involved in the federal reserve has crippled the economic structure of America’s Economy.
    A anonymous activity to build a honest COS Forum called-
    “A 50 States Convention Program- Article V Constitution”
    consist of finding issues that needs to be seen, and the Convention of States- $127 Trillion In Unfunded Liabilities, The News Networks are paying attention, to the Anonymous release of the amount of funds borrowed by officials of the United States Government from the federal reserve.

    First News update- From Convention of States-
    Coburn on USA Today: A convention of states can restore our Constitution

    Posted by Sen. Tom Coburn M.D. on April 30, 2015
    read more:http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/a-50-states-convention-program-article-v-constitution?xg_source=activity

    Oppose COS if you wish but I would suggest finding way to protect it from them that is in office.

  54. In defence of an Article V Convention of States I offer the following:

    First of all, it is important to understand why the Convention of States Project is seeking to trigger an amendment-proposing convention in the first place. Adding amendments to the Constitution is a serious and difficult business, and we would not undertake this enormous effort if we believed there was some other way to put our nation back on its proper course.

    Most of the problems we now face are the result of constitutional interpretations that capitalize on ambiguities in the wording of certain phrases (i.e., the General Welfare Clause—now interpreted as unlimited power to spend). So we can restore the federal government to its proper, limited place only by clarifying the original meaning of those phrases through constitutional amendments—effectively overturning the bad Supreme Court precedents that have eviscerated our federal system.

    Article V naysayers claim that we should fear the use of the convention mechanism because they believe that Congress, which is given the duty to “call” the Convention upon application by 34 states, then proceeds to dictate the operations of the convention, determine the scope of the proposals to be discussed, and even select the delegates to attend it! This claim is easily laid to rest using a combination of history, logic, and precedents.

    History – Review James Madison’s Notes of the Convention for September 15, 1787. An earlier version of Article V gave Congress the power to propose amendments whenever two-thirds of both Houses deemed it necessary, or upon application of two-thirds of the state legislatures. At first glance, this sounds very similar to the current version of Article V. The difference between that version and the current version is in who does the proposing.

    Col. George Mason objected to the earlier version. He “thought the plan of amending the Constitution exceptionable & dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.”

    And so we got the current version, unanimously adopted by the Constitution’s drafters, requiring Congress to call a convention of the states for proposing amendments upon application of two-thirds of the states.

    On November 14, 1788, the Virginia General Assembly filed the first application for an Article V Convention to propose a bill of rights, using this language:

    The anxiety with which our countrymen press for the accomplishment of this important end, will ill admit of delay. The slow forms of Congressional discussion and recommendation, if, indeed, they should ever agree to any change, would, we fear, be less certain of success. Happily for their wishes, the Constitution hath presented an alternative, by admitting the submission to a convention of the States. To this, therefore, we resort as the source from whence they are to derive relief from their present apprehensions.

    We do, therefore, in behalf of our constituents, in the most earnest and solemn manner, make this application to Congress, that a convention be immediately called, of deputies from the several States, with full power to take into their consideration the defects of this Constitution that have been suggested by the State Conventions, and report such amendments thereto as they shall find best suited to promote our common interests, and secure to ourselves and our latest posterity, the great and unalienable rights of mankind.

    This document makes it abundantly clear that an Article V Convention is a “convention of the States,” to be composed of “deputies from the several States.”

    Article V naysayers claim that at an Article V Convention, our entire Constitution will be thrown open for surgery—including our Bill of Rights. This is wrong as a matter of fact, precedent, and logic.

    Fact – Over 400 applications for an Article V Convention have been filed. The reason we have never had one is because there have never been 34 applications seeking a convention for the same purpose. This fact demonstrates that the purpose or scope specified in the applications do matter, and only when 34 states agree to convene on a given topic will the Convention even be triggered.

    Precedent – When states convene, they always have a particular purpose and specified topic. The purpose of the 1787 Convention was to “render the Federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union.” The purpose of the Annapolis Convention was to address trade barriers between states.

    Logic – Official meetings of any kind always have a stated purpose and/or agenda. There is just no other rational way to conduct business.

    Conclusion – The Convention of States Project application limits the scope of an Article V Convention to proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and set term limits for its officials and members of Congress. States can instruct their delegates to entertain only a more narrow scope of proposals, but they cannot broaden the topic beyond that identified in the 34 triggering applications. Contrary conclusions have no basis in fact, law or history.

    (1)The scope of authority for the convention is defined by the topic specified in the 34 applications that trigger the convention. These applications are the very source of authority for the convention to begin with. Any proposals beyond that scope would be out of order, and any single delegate could object to their consideration.

    (2)Even if not a single convention delegate objected to an out-of-order proposal, and/or even if the convention delegates had installed a parliamentarian who refused to sustain an objection, state legislatures can recall any delegates who exceed their authority or instructions. This is because convention delegates are the agents (a legal term of art) of their state legislature and are subject to the instructions given by their state legislature. As a matter of basic agency law, any actions taken outside the scope of a delegate’s authority would be void.

    (3)Even if a majority of convention delegates went rogue, and state legislatures failed to stop commissioners from acting beyond their powers, and Congress nevertheless sent the illicit amendment proposals to the states for ratification, the courts would declare the proposals void. While the courts don’t have a wonderful track record in interpreting broad constitutional language, they do have an excellent track record of enforcing clear, technical matters of procedure and agency law.

    (4)Even if ALL of those protections failed, it borders insanity to think that 38 states (the requirement for ratification) would ratify an amendment proposed under these circumstances.

    This is a matter of precedent. The universal precedent for voting at an interstate convention is on a one-state, one-vote basis. It is not a convention of delegates but a convention of states. This is the reason Article V did not need to specify the number of delegates to be sent by each state. The states can send as many delegates as they like, but each state only gets one vote.

    This is also a matter of history. In 1788, the Virginia legislature correctly called this process a “convention of states” in the first application ever passed under Article V. Nothing has changed since then.

    It is also a matter of law. The Supreme Court has also referred to it as a “convention of states.” Smith v. Union Bank of Georgetown, 30 U.S. 518 (1831).

    At a convention of states, voting is by states.

  55. Referencing JBS publications does not add credibility to your statements. They have been duplicitous and deceitful in their anti-Convention of States (COS) rants. Their arguments have been methodically disassembled by the leadership of the COS movement. I am a retired USAF MSgt who still feels bound by my oath to support the Constitution. Article V and the method of a COS ARE PART OF THAT CONSTITUTION, specifically given to us by Madison for such a time as this! This is no time for hand-wringing and timidity! Putting the fedgov back in its box and reclaiming our Republic will require bold action. While the opposition throws out “What if?” boogeymen about a COS, stop and ask yourself what the outcome will be if we just keep doing what we’ve been doing. We’ll just get more of what we have. A COS is the only effective recourse we have left.

  56. First oath of office on February 5, 1965 as a reservist. Direct commission in Medical Corps. Active Duty Air Force from August, 1966 until September, 1978. Active Reserve from September 1978 until July, 1985. Active Duty from July, 1985 to Retirement in September, 1996.

    Thirty-one years of total service; 28 Active. Took (and administered) many oaths during that time and would not even THINK of acting contrary to those oaths today after nearly 19 years of retirement.
    I find nothing inconsistent between those oaths and my strong support of the Article V amending convention under the Convention of States Project. I am far more concerned about the “runaway” Federal government that we see today and have seen over the past several decades than I am over the extremely remote and minuscule chance of something going wrong at a Convention of States in the hands of patriots as they meet to propose amendments to restrain the Federal government’s over-reach and return the nation to constitutional government. Understanding what is at stake for the nation and in remembrance of those oaths, I could not do anything better than support that effort.

  57. There are a few problems that would make an Article V convention (and not just the COS one as I can think of another one we should call that is not within the scope of the COS call)

    Here is one that is NOT even in the COS Scope but needs to be addressed due to language in the Constitution itself allowing it.

    As you know, the voting for the House is merely (other than the state and federal constitutional amendments saying otherwise) up to the election requirements for a state’s most numerous branch of its legislature (which is up to the state). The 17th Amendment allowed the same thing to be applied to the Senate.

    Thus, a state like California can have both its state legislature and its Congressional seats held forever in power due to illegal aliens being allowed to vote and due to U.S. citizenship requirements not being explicitly stated as a requirement in the U.S. Constitution (at least not for Congress nor for state legislatures), they can get away with this. Indeed, if a state wanted to play dirty enough, it could allow someone from a neighboring state to vote there instead (dual voting would fall under federal affairs perhaps and so could be challenged there) and get away with it.

    Also, though the Presidency DOES require U.S. citizenship, technically the control of the polling places and whatnot is left open to the states, thus leaving it too easy for fraud.

    Thus, saying we had 12 crooked states and an unwilling Congress, what do we do? We could have an Article V convention to bypass both the crooked Congress and the crooked 12 states (remember, we need 38 states to ratify, not 50) and we could change the voting requirements for all 50 states and get voter ID imposed.

    It’s the same way with the federal government and COS. The Supreme Court can be blocked by both legislative (who could, through the power of the purse, defund bad rulings I think or amend ways around them, even going to the Constitution itself if need be) and the executive (who can refuse to enforce the ruling, as both Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln did.)

    Problem is, right now, Congress is caving and Obama LIKES what the SCOTUS is doing. Thus, we have two lawless branches (executive and judicial) and one virtually useless one (legislative). We also have agencies that can now act and will be free to do so unless legislative (which seems too concerned about a “government shutdown” to bother), executive (which enjoys it), and judicial (which often backs them, the EPA ruling was the exception, not the rule), and that is the bureaucracies.

    Problem is, with the 17th Amendment, the states lost control of the Senate. Now, instead of state appointed guys controlling impeachment process and confirmation process, we now have career politicians in the Senate.

    Thus, if we amended the Constitution to allow the STATES to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, have it change so that 3/5 of the states confirm presidential appointments (like SCOTUS or DOJ for instance), stuff allowing the states to approve the continuation of bureaucracies (and discontinue them automatically if they aren’t approved), rules causing most laws to sunset automatically in Congress and bureaucracies if not renewed by a certain time, and on and on.

    Thus, I think an Article V convention is a GOOD idea.

  58. The Article V people in Colorado – and the “Sovereign Citizen” movement – have made inroads (hijacked) into the Colorado State chapter of Oath Keepers. Since the Article V movement has been backed by George Soros, I have to oppose any such convention because it is targeted for hijacking. I’ve tried to make contact with “upper management” at Oath Keepers national, namely Stewart Rhodes, to report on this infiltration and hijacking of both the “Convention of the States” by Soros-funded organizations and the infiltration of Oath Keepers Colorado by this organization and – according to inside sources I met with yesterday – the “Sovereign Citizens” people who are anarchist in nature and have very little use for the Constitutional Rule of Law. So, I will submit it here with the hopes that some of you have direct contact with Stewart. The local leadership here in Colorado refer to me as a “radical nut” for bringing this to their attention and have cut me off the Oathkeepers of Colorado FB page, making further communication with local leadership impossible, something I no longer wish to do in any case, because Colorado leadership is weak-minded and dangerously uninformed, even subversive in such abject ignorance. So, please contact me via my OK Membership# (just renewed a few minutes ago…) #013193. I’ve written a full report on the matter.

  59. If the mob gets their way, using their superior numbers to circumvent the Constitutional Rule of Law and such a convention is taken over by the well-funded agents of George Soros, expect armed conflict the next day and you fellow-traveling advocates can congratulate yourselves for having accomplished that. That is your goal, correct?

    You expect me to believe that these conventions will more fully enforce our founders’ intent in the District of Criminals where the kakistocracy already ignores what is right and good as written? Really?

    See where this goes. Go ahead. The unintended consequences, or intended ones in many cases, are coming regardless. We have irreconcilable differences, you collectivists and we individuals – whom you are forcing together in common purpose. You will get what you so richly deserve, natural law being the “dictator” of this debate in reality. You place your trust in men, thus revealing your collectivism, your lack of attunement with the original intent and purpose of our Constitution which was to dis-empower government while empowering free men and women. You think that the ruling elite in Washington will stay out of this process, that the multitudes of agents who are just waiting for you to make this fatal error – are not there, when verifiable information to the contrary has been published for all to consider.

    The mistake many are making is in the assumption that war is not already engaged. Right now, it is this realm the realm of ideas. But for it to devolve from this battlefield to the streets – is only one well-funded hijacking away. Well, good luck with that. Do what you will. See what you get. However this conflict goes, I know it is already engaged and I am prepared as much as I can be.

    Don’t Tread on Me.

  60. I was honored to be a member of Oathkeepers. If this article represents the views of the Oathkeepers values. I feel it contradicts the Oath too to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I also feel is contradicts the slogan and values of your group.

    This article mirror’s the campaign of lies, egnorence fear mongering as the John Birch Society.

    The Oathkeepers was a organization that supported the people when injustices of the government effected them. Now it seems to more about propaganda and image. You should do more research on the topics before you promote false image of the Constitution.

    1. You should take your own advice. If you had done any research whatsoever, then perhaps you could have presented some semblance of a real argument. What you written is not an argument, only baseless and foolish opinion backed by nothing.

  61. We NEED a convention, congress has proven time and again, the WILL NOT rescind any of there powers!! This is the only way to reign them in. No matter what is decided in a convention, it has to be ratified by the states to become valid, another check and balance!!!! Hooray for the founding fathers and there wisdom!!!

Comments are closed.