Opinion / Politics / Veterans News

This Is Not a Time for Veterans to Remain Indifferent to National Events

old-veteran-saluteBy – Paul S. Gardiner

As a retired Army man and Vietnam veteran, I am truly upset and frustrated over what I see happening to my country.  The lawlessness, corruption, and abuse of power demonstrated by so many of our nationally elected (and non-elected) officials boggles my mind.  I believe there are thousands of my fellow veterans who feel the same way.  The question is do we continue to sit on our hands and do nothing but complain or do we decide to take some kind of meaningful action to correct things in our nation?  One important action we can take is described below.

Regardless of who is elected President in November or which political party controls Congress, there are several major problems that the political “elites” or career politicians in Washington, DC, are incapable of solving.  This all relates to the fact that today’s federal government is far too large and powerful, even extending its jurisdiction into public restrooms these days!  I believe  the trajectory of our nation is most definitely headed in the wrong direction, and if it is not soon changed, many of the most basic freedoms guaranteed to Americans in our Constitution will be greatly diminished or even eventually lost.  We veterans must not let this happen—we need to continue honoring our oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So, what can we veterans do to change things for the better in our nation?  At a minimum, we can become educated about a nationwide effort to restore the balance of power, as originally intended in our Constitution, between the federal government and the state governments.  This effort, called Convention of States Project, seeks to avoid what Abraham Lincoln once warned against: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” 

Briefly, the Convention of States Project seeks for 2/3 of the state governments (34 legislatures) to convene a convention of states (authorized in Article V of the Constitution) for the limited purpose of proposing Constitutional amendments that will 1) impose fiscal restraints on the federal government; 2) limit the power/jurisdiction of the federal government; and 3) limit the terms of office for its officials, including members of the federal judiciary.  Proposed amendments would have to be eventually ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures to become part of the Constitution and law of the land.  As of August 2016, eight state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for a convention of states for the above limited purpose.

I encourage all my fellow veterans to take that first step and become educated about the Convention of States Project and what it endeavors to accomplish.  Information is available at www.conventionofstates.com, and presentations to veterans groups can be arranged by sending an e-mail request to [email protected] or calling 703-863-0664.  Take time to learn the facts about this very important effort to change things for the better in America.

Paul S. Gardiner, LTC (ret), USAR
National Veterans Coalitions Director
Convention of States Project (www.conventionofstates.com)

e-mail:  [email protected]

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Subscribe
Notify of
114 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill McDowell
5 years ago

Volunteer and get more information at http://www.conventionofstates.com

Concord Green
5 years ago

I wish I could agree that the Constitution has worked well since 1787. It clearly hasn’t. When the Convention of States project succeeds, it will enable the review of solutions to the problems experienced since then. I certainly hope that changes can and will be made for the good, and I know that mistakes by intent and miscalibration are possible, even likely. Nevertheless failing to try is no longer acceptable.

Roger
5 years ago

Folks, we all know that this nation is in trouble. The prospects for the future is troubling, for this generation and for generations to come. We have an unacceptable federal debt, there is serious power grabs in the federal courts, and we have escalating power of an irresponsible centralized government which is threatening the financial ruin of generations of Americans. This situation is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared, so they themselves gave us a solution in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Under Article V, The Convention of States, which can only be convened after 34 States pass successful applications, would be limited to imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power of the federal government, and mandating term limits. And any proposed amendments only become part of the Constitution after they are ratified by 38 States, rendering the Runaway Convention very unrealistic. When 38 States agree on something, it’s not a runaway, it is a mandate. So please don’t just dismiss this idea because of what you hear or you think you know, Get Informed.. Please join us at conventionofstates.com and cosaction.com and get involved.

GaryWood
5 years ago

Reading through the many comment threads it is not surprising to see the debate raging about needing a convention vs. not wanting to touch the Constitution. Reality is we’ve touched the Constitution and adulterated some principles of federalism while improving some areas from the initial document. The Constitution was not to be a finished work, it was an effort to form a more perfect union designed to promote liberty and protect all humans pledging allegiance to this country. We know there are imperfections and corrections necessary but the common fear I read is the unscrupulous may control it so we should not risk it. We are at risk of the entire system collapsing because the unscrupulous control the progressive approach of delegated powers and administrative law.

The facade we are still operating under the U.S. Constitution is even eroding, glaring proof of our fall from federalism is clearer today than at any time in our history. Democratic socialism is openly cheered, bureaucracy is out of control at all levels, and the majority/minority party positions in our legislative branches are aiding in the final transformation progressive efforts drive toward. Risk is found in not calling for an Article V convention.

Of all the organizations that see this as a viable path the one group with a controllable agenda, the group that I have found to be the least risky, is the Convention of States. For me it would be a shame to only call a convention for a single proposal, like a balanced budget or term limits. This is the main reason I fully support the agenda presented by the team behind the Convention of States movement. If you have not reviewed this important agenda please do so and get behind the efforts in your states. http://www.conventionofstates.com/).

I’ve been a student of our federalist republic since taking my first Oath of Office in 1976. The decades of study has led me beyond the fears some speak of, a runaway convention that will destroy our constitutional order. In my years of study, teaching, and learning about the science of government a federalist republic is still the best system we can have for living as a free country. American Federalism is about to be destroyed, we cannot protect it by not using the tools the framers and founders fought to ensure we had available. Just as the 10th Amendment can help stop federal abuses from new laws, rules, and regulations and Article V convention can help us solidify, modify, and improve the Supreme Law. Restoring federalism will not occur any other way, peacefully, in my humble view.

Ralph
5 years ago

Why would you even think veterans are indifferent to national events? Their is a certain percent of any group that will not get involved in anything. I think most people don’t vote because they don’t want to be selected for jury duty.

Paul G
5 years ago

PaulE: your arguments clarify nothing. If you are relying on Publius Huldah for your information about a limited COS, you are getting a completely biased and uniformed opinion. You need to study the legal opinions of many true constitutional scholars, including Justice Scalia, about the need for and safety of a limited COS of the sort being championed by COS Project. These opinions are available to read and study on the COS Project web site. All it takes is a little of your time.

PaulE
5 years ago
Reply to  Paul G

Huldah is but one of many real Constitutional experts that understand the ramification of a CoS. Hardly the only one however. If you had been paying attention to any of the hundreds of previous posts on this site over the last few years, you would have seen dozens of references spelled out, by various Constitutional experts, as to the real-world dangers and pitfalls of doing a CoS with the type of highly fractured society we have today.

I understand you want to march forward and embrace a CoS, because it represents, at least in your mind, a painless, quick fix that absolves you and most other Americans, of any of the personal responsibilities we all have to maintain and protect the core political principles this nation was founded on. It’s always much more convenient for most people to latch onto the next promised “magic fix”, than to do the hard work of living up to one’s personal responsibilities as an American citizen. So by all means continue to cling to the magic fix of a CoS. It’s still your right to do so. That is until the Constitution gets amended in ways you don’t foresee or choose to ignore and your rights and freedoms, along with everyone else’s, get curtailed.

Paul G
5 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

if you think getting 34 different state legislatures (that’s 68 total legislative chambers) all to agree and submit the same language to petition the Congress to convene a COS, if you think this is a “quick fix”, you are blowing smoke. This is very hard work and takes much dedication and sweat. My duty and yours, if you are a vet, is to support and protect our Constitution which is being shredded more and more each day it seems. The best way to protect it is to use the safety valve specifically put into it by the Founders for a day such as this–if this safety mechanism is not used, we fail to carry out our sworn duty.

Gary Thomas
5 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

Wrt ” It’s always much more convenient for most people to latch onto the next promised “magic fix”, than to do the hard work of living up to one’s personal responsibilities as an American citizen.”.. calling upon our State legislators to submit an application for a convention of states is our personal responsibility… one that will “maintain and protect the core political principles this nation was founded on.” Conversely, simply hoping that Congress & the Supreme Court will start adhering to & interpreting the Constitution as our Founding Fathers intended is a “magic fix”.. one that will never happen.

Any amendment proposal from an amendment convention will have to adhere to the topics proposed in the states’ applications. The COS project is promoting 3 topics where any proposed amendment must restrain the power/authority of the Federal government, impose fiscal restraints on the Federal government or impose term limits on Federal government officials, including the Judiciary…. all of which are the antithesis of the progressives’ objectives. Any proposed amendment not falling into one of these categories will be challenged in court and subsequently declared invalid. Furthermore, any proposal will still require ratification by 38 State legislatures, i.e. it only takes 13 States houses to block any proposal.

So please tell me how the Constitution will be endangered by an Article V convention, operating under the topics promoted by the COS project. I’m really curious to understand how that could be done.

PaulE
5 years ago

Perhaps this will clarify the issue for those of you who are clamoring for a so-called Article V Convention of States. Stop seeking “magic fixes” for the failure of the American people to do their role in protecting the Constitution and our representative republic. No republic can survive and thrive without an actively engaged, motivated and educated public willing to defend the core principles that the nation was founded on and holding their so-called representatives to account.

By Publius Huldah
September 21, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

What Mark Levin says in “The Liberty Amendments” in support of an Article V convention is not true.[1]

On one side of this controversy are those who want to restore our Constitution by requiring federal and State officials to obey the Constitution we have; or by electing ones who will. We show that the Oath of Office at Art. VI, last clause, requires federal[2] and state officials to support the Constitution. This requires them to refuse to submit to – to nullify – acts of the federal government which violate the Constitution. This is how they “support” the Constitution!

We note that the Oath of Office requires obedience to the Constitution alone. The Oath does not require obedience to persons, to any agency of the federal government, or to any federal court.

We understand that resistance to tyranny is a natural right – and it is a duty.

We have read original writings of our Framers and know what our Framers actually told the States to do when the federal government violates the Constitution: Nullification of the unlawful act is among the first of the recommended remedies–not one of which is “amendment of the Constitution.”[3]

It is already proved in “James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers” that our Framers endorsed nullification by States of unconstitutional acts of the federal government. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison summed it up as follows:

“…when powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act”[4] is “the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against in supportable oppression…”[5]

The claims of the nullification deniers have been proven to be false. To persist in those claims – or to do as Levin seems to do and ignore the remedy of nullification – is intellectually and morally indefensible. So why don’t they apologize to the public and recant their errors?

Instead, they continue to tell us that what we need is a “convention of the States” (which Levin and his mentors insist is provided by Article V of the Constitution) to propose amendments to the Constitution, and that this is the only way out.

Yes, they tell us, the only way to deal with a federal government which consistently ignores and tramples over the Constitution is …. to amend the Constitution!

Do you see how silly that is?

Levin’s Amendments

Levin starts his book by saying how bad things are and how the federal government has trampled and mangled the Constitution. Those pages are true. And they serve the purpose of making readers believe that Levin is “on our side.” And because of that, many are induced to lay aside their critical thinking skills and accept on trust what Levin tells them. That is a deadly mistake.

Levin’s amendments actually gut our Constitution. Most increase the powers of the federal government by making lawful what is now unconstitutional because it is not an “enumerated power.” Others put a band-aid on a problem without solving the problem. The amendments pertaining to “overrides” undermine the Constitution as the Objective Standard of what is lawful and what is not – and substitute majority vote therefore.[6]

A Defective Constitution? Or a Disobedient Federal Government?

We must distinguish between defects within a Constitution, and a government’s refusal to obey the Constitution to which it is subject. These are different problems calling for different remedies.

There were defects in the Constitution produced by the Federal Convention of 1787, such as provisions permitting slavery. Provision for amendment must be made to repair such defects.[7]

But our problem now is a disobedient federal government. That calls for different remedies – and our Framers spelled them out.[3]

It is idiotic to assert that you can rein in a federal government which ignores the Constitution by amending the Constitution! Yet, that is “The Levin Plan.”

Now let us read Article:

What Article V Really Says

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, 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…” [boldface mine]

Note that Congress “calls” the Convention. The States don’t “call” it – all they can do is apply to Congress for Congress to call it.

There are many questions about Article V conventions; and James Madison raised them on two occasions at the Federal Convention of 1787:[8]

• On September 10, Madison remarked on the vagueness of the term, “call a Convention for the purpose”: How was a Convention to be formed? By what rule decide? What the force of its acts?
• On September 15, Madison commented on this again, and said that difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, etc., which in constitutional regulations ought to be avoided when possible.

Mr. Madison saw that these questions are not addressed by Article V. Eagle Forum has also raised this issue in Twenty Questions about a constitutional convention.

But since Congress “calls” it, Congress has the power to appoint whomsoever they will as delegates;[9] and nothing in the Constitution says they can’t do this.

Now note that Art. V provides for two conventions:

• The first is the one called by Congress to propose amendments.
• After amendments are proposed, Art. V empowers Congress to select the mode of ratification: Shall the State Legislatures be the body to ratify or reject? Or shall each State convene a convention for the purposes or ratifying or rejecting the proposed amendments?

The only convention Art. V authorizes States to convene is one within their respective borders to ratify or reject an amendment proposed by Congress or by the convention Congress called.

What Levin Claims Article V Says

As you see, Art. V makes no provision for a “state convention process” where the States control the convention.

Yet Levin makes the bizarre claims (cp 16-17) that Art. V authorizes this “state convention process”; and that the convention called by Congress pursuant to Art. V is really:

• A “creature …of the state legislatures”;
• That during ratification of our Constitution, the Founders always talked about conventions for proposing amendments as representing the States; and
• That the state legislatures determine the method for selection of their delegates; and the subject matter of the convention.

Does Levin cite any authority for these claims? Words of our Framers, perhaps?

No! He cites an article written by former law professor, Robert G. Natelson, who Levin says is an “expert” on this “state convention process” (p16, notes 28 & 29).

Here is the article by Natelson Levin cites as “authority” for his claims. Note that:

• Natelson announces that he will no longer call what he wants a “constitutional convention.” Henceforth, he will call it a “convention for proposing amendments,” an “Article V Convention,” an “amendments convention” or a “convention of the states.”[10]
• Natelson doesn’t cite any authority from our Framers for the claims Levin regurgitates in his book. Instead, Natelson cites other law review articles; and
• Natelson claims it was “custom” at the time of our Founding for States to have all these powers in conventions.

Custom?

Natelson’s article is no authority at all. And even if he had proven that the “custom” at the time of our Framing was for States to have all these powers in conventions [someone really should have told James Madison about this “custom”]; what is there to make the Congress of today follow this 18th century “custom” when Congress“calls” the convention under Art. V?

Levin also says he knows Congress’ role in the “state application process” is minimal and ministerial because:

• The Framers and ratifiers adopted this “state convention process” for the purpose of establishing an alternative to the congressionally initiated amendment process; and
• Alexander Hamilton said so in Federalist Paper No. 85.

Here, Levin commits the logical fallacy of “circular reasoning”: We know, Levin argues, that Congress’ role in the state application process is “minimal and ministerial” because the Framers adopted this as an alternative to the method where Congress proposes the amendments directly. Do you see?

Levin next claims that in Federalist No. 85, Hamilton said, respecting an Art. V convention, that Congress has “no option,” “will be obliged,” and that “nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body” (p 16-17).

Levin misrepresents what Hamilton says. In Federalist No. 85, Hamilton merely says that Congress must call a convention when two-thirds of the States apply for it:

“… By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged … on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States … to call a convention for proposing amendments … 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. …”

Levin wrongly extends Congress’ lack of discretion on the issue of “to call or not to call” to what follows the “call”: How the convention is to be formed, the appointment of delegates, the other questions raised by Madison on September 10 & 15, 1787, and Eagle Forum’s Twenty Questions.

I have never seen any of the Framers say that Congress has no power over what follows Congress’ “call”; and Levin doesn’t produce evidence that any of them ever did.

Levin misrepresents what happened at the Federal Convention of 1787.

This 4 page chart lays out what really happened at that Convention respecting Article V.

To introduce his discussion of that Convention, Levin makes the following fanciful claims:

“The Constitution itself provides the means for restoring self-government and averting societal catastrophe (or, in the case of societal collapse, resurrecting the civil society) in Article V.” (p 12)

“The fact is that Article V expressly grants state legislatures significant authority to re balance the constitutional structure for the purpose of restoring our founding principles should the federal government shed its limitations, abandon its original purpose, and grow too powerful…” (p12-13)

Of course, Article V says no such thing!

Levin then quotes Edmund Randolph & George Mason, delegates to the Convention, as support for his claims respecting the purpose of Art. V.

Mr. Randolph & Col. Mason wanted a method of amendment Congress had nothing to do with. This became an issue at the Convention; Randolph & Mason held the minority view.

On September 15, 1787, Randolph & Mason said they would not sign the Constitution unless Art. V were amended to require another general convention to approve amendments proposed by what they called “state conventions.”

So they moved that the following be added to Art. V:

“that amendments to the plan [Constitution] might be offered by the State conventions, which should be submitted to, and finally decided on by, another general convention.”

This was voted on and all the States answered, “No.”

So Randolph & Mason – on whom Levin relies to support his fanciful claim that the purpose of Art. V is for the States to hold conventions to amend the Constitution when the federal government gets out of line – didn’t sign the Constitution because Art. V didn’t provide for the “state conventions” and the “general convention” they demanded; and Congress retained its major role in the amendment process.

Do you see? Levin and his mentors are trying to resurrect Randolph’s & Mason’s plan of “state conventions to propose amendments” which was REJECTED by the Federal Convention of 1787!

Our Framers’ Concerns about “Conventions”

Now let us examine the “convention for proposing amendments” which Congress calls pursuant to Art. V; the “runaway” the Federal Convention of 1787 turned into, and “general conventions.”

We saw that James Madison raised concerns on September 10 & 15, 1787, about Art. V conventions called by Congress, because of questions respecting how was a Convention to be formed, by what rule, & the procedures of such conventions.

Yet Levin claims that in Federalist No. 43, Madison shows he considered an Art. V convention as prudent a method of amendment as having Congress propose the amendments (p 15).

Madison does not say that in Federalist No. 43![11]

Second, Levin’s claim is contradicted by Madison’s words in his letter of November 2, 1788 to G. L. Turberville on the same subject.

In his letter to Turberville, Madison speaks, with reference to modes of originating amendments, of both a “general convention” and an “Article V Convention,” on the one hand; and, on the other hand, “the origination of amendments in Congress.”

Madison advises that amendments be originated in Congress – not in an Art. V Convention, for the various reasons set forth in his letter; and that:

“2. A [“general”] Convention cannot be called without the unanimous consent of the parties who are to be bound by it, if first principles are to be recurred to; or without the previous application of – of the State legislatures, if the forms of the Constitution [Art. V] are to be pursued. The difficulties in either of these cases must evidently be much greater than will attend the origination of amendments in Congress, which may be done at the instance of a single State Legislature, or even without a single instruction on the subject…” [boldface mine]

Do you see? Madison advises that when States want amendments, they instruct their Congressional delegation to pursue it. This is the best way for the States to “originate amendments”!

That is the mode Madison strongly recommended; that is the mode we have followed. On May 5, 1789, Rep. Bland (pages 258-261) introduced into Congress the petition from the State of Virginia for an Art. V Convention to propose amendments. But on June 8, 1789, Madison (pages 448-460) introduced 12 proposed amendments for Congress to propose to the State Legislatures. And on September 24, 1789, the House & Senate having agreed on the wording of the proposed 12 amendments; the House requested the President to transmit them to the States for ratification.

If we cannot elect to Congress people who will follow the instructions of their State Legislatures & constituents and propose those amendments which actually need to be made; how can we trust Congress to “call” a convention?

And as to another “general” or “runaway” convention, perish the thought!:

On September 15,1787, in response to Randolph’s & Mason’s demands for a “general convention” to decide on amendments, Mr. Pinckney pointed out that nothing but confusion and contrariety will spring from calling forth the deliberations and amendments of the different States, on the subject of government at large. States will never agree in their plans; and the deputies to a second convention, coming together under the discordant impressions of their constituents, will never agree. “Conventions are serious things, and ought not to be repeated.”

In Federalist No. 85 (9thpara), Hamilton spoke of:

“…the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded…”

James Madison warned against another general convention in his letter to Turberville:

“3… an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it … would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. … it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America…” [boldface mine]

Do we have “violent partizans,” “individuals of insidious views,” and any who would exploit an opportunity to sap “the very foundations of the fabric” today? Yes, we do. They are in Congress, the executive branch, the federal Courts, “conservative” circles – and they are invading our Country at a furious rate. And what now is the “present temper of America”?

Why a “Runaway” Article V Convention is a Real Possibility and a Grave Danger.

Pursuant to the authority granted by Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress Resolved on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74):

“Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions there in as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.” [boldface mine]

So! The Convention of 1787 was called by the Continental Congress for the “sole and express purpose” of proposing revisions to the Articles of Confederation.

But the delegates ignored these limitations and wrote anew Constitution.[12]

As to delegates, the Continental Congress expressly directed the States to appoint the delegates.

But there is no requirement in Art. V of our Constitution that States be permitted to appoint delegates; and no “custom” from the era of the Continental Congress can bind the Congress of today.

So if Congress of today were to call an Art. V convention, Congress would most likely get delegates who would do what Congress wants.

And will Congress appoint Islamists as delegates? La Raza Mexicans? Other special interest groups? How can Congress be prevented from appointing whomsoever they will?

And if the delegates duly appointed by Congress, and acting under the Authority of Congress, come up with a new Constitution, will the new Constitution outlaw Christianity? (Obama is outlawing it in the military, and Congress isn’t doing a thing about it). Will it institute Sharia? Will it disarm the American People? Will it follow the UN Model where “rights” are privileges granted and withdrawn by the State? Will it outlaw private property?

And this new Constitution will have its own mode of ratification. This new mode of ratification can be whatever the delegates want – a majority vote in Congress, perhaps?

There is no way to stop them from “running away” and writing a new Constitution with its own mode of ratification. They can cram a new Constitution down your throat and you won’t be able to do a thing about it.

On page 15, Levin commits a formal fallacy (an argument defective as to form) when he attempts to prove that an Art. V convention can’t possibly turn into a “runaway.” Here is the form of his argument:

1. He was originally skeptical of “the state convention process” because it could turn into a “runaway.”
2. Art. V says a proposed amendment has no effect unless ratified by ¾ of the States.
3. Therefore, the “state convention process” can’t result in a “hijack of the Constitution” [“runaway”].

His conclusion (3) is a form of non sequitur – it doesn’t follow from the premises (1 & 2). And our concern is not with amendments – those are subject to approval by three-fourths of the States. Our concern is that the convention will “runaway” and write a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification which does not require approval by three-fourths of the States. Do you see?

Conclusion

Few of us can name even 5 of the enumerated powers of Congress and 4 of the enumerated powers of the President. Why? Because we never bothered to learn our Constitution. Alexander Hamilton expected THE PEOPLE to be “the natural guardians of the Constitution.” But you can’t “guard” the Constitution if you don’t trouble yourself to learn it.

Since we never bothered to learn the Constitution, we elected politicians who also hadn’t bothered to learn it. So they ignored the Constitution when they assumed office.

This is why, after more than 100 years of electing politicians who ignore the Constitution, we are now under tyranny and headed for disaster.

Do we now want a way out which allows us to avoid confronting our own personal failures as Guardians of the Constitution? When charlatans who “sound good” offer us a scapegoat, do we jump on it? Do we chant, “The Constitution is broken! Fix the Constitution!” And shall we pretend that we too know all about how to amend a Constitution most of us never bothered to read?

Our Constitution depended on our knowing our Constitution and in electing representatives who would obey it – and getting rid of them when they didn’t.

James Madison said on June 20, 1788 at the Virginia Ratifying Convention:

“…. But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks—no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.”

We are in a “wretched situation” because we lost our virtue. Renounce handouts and pride in pretended “knowingness.” Learn the enumerated powers of Congress and the President. This chart will get you started. Learn about nullification. Form delegations and go to your State Legislators, educate them and demand they start nullifying unconstitutional acts of the federal government. States should nullify obamacare! If Legislators aren’t willing to renounce federal funding, recall or defeat them!

Endnotes:

1. We must stop believing whatever we are told. We must demand proof by original source documents, and think for ourselves.
2. The President’s Oath is set forth at Art. II, §1, last clause.
3. These are among the remedies our Framers advised when the federal government usurps power:

-In Federalist No. 44 (12thpara from end), Madison say select more faithful representatives!:

“… In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers…”

But we keep reelecting the same sorry people because we know their names and they are in our party.

-States should nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government! This is proven with links to original sources in James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers.

-In Federalist No. 46 (last half), Madison shows how individual States or several States carry out various degrees of resistance to the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachments. See also: What Should States Do When The Federal Government Usurps Power?

-In Federalist No. 28 (last 5 paras), Hamilton says:

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success …” [italics mine]

“…The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them…”

“It may safely be received as an axiom …that the State governments will … afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority…. The legislatures … can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition…”

“…When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people … who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense…”

4. Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, 8th Resolution.
5. James Madison, Notes on Nullification (1834). The quote is near the end. Use “find” function.
6. Later, I will show why Levin’s proposed amendments gut our Constitution. Meanwhile, you read the Constitution, learn the enumerated powers of Congress, and see if you can figure out what is wrong with the proposed amendments. Use your own head and trust no one.

7. Alexander Hamilton said on Sep. 10, 1787 that an easy mode should be established for fixing defects which will probably appear in the new system … the National Legislature will be the first to perceive, and will be most sensible to, the necessity of amendments…

8. What happened at the Federal Convention of 1787 respecting Art. V is laid out in this 4 page chart.
9. “Citizens for Self-Governance,” headed by the Michael Farris who is pushing the “parental rights amendment, represents that the “Convention of the States” will soon:

“…open the application process for leadership positions across the country. Consider applying to be a District Captain, Legislative Liaison, or State Director…”

thereby making the gullible believe that they can be a “player” in this “Convention of the States.”

10. Phyllis Schlafly, Kelleigh Nelson, Henry Lamb and others have done such a magnificent job of warning The People of the dangers of a constitutional convention, that many now understand that such is likely to result in anew Constitution – with its own method of ratification – being forced on us.

So! Proponents now cal lit by another name: “Convention of the States” or “state convention process.” Is the purpose of the name change to deceive you?To make you think it is something “different” from the Art. V convention Congress calls?

11. In Federalist No. 43, Madison comments on Art. V:

“8…That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other…”

12. We were fortunate (except for slavery) with the Constitution of 1787, even though the Federal Convention was a “runaway”. Look who was there!: George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin; and they weren’t drowned out by subversives. They would be today.

� 2013 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

Publius Huldah is a retired attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs.h

RogerW
5 years ago

This former Army NCO says that Barack Obama is an enemy to the Constitution. All of us who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution need to recognize that the scumbag Obama, and the lying criminal Hillary Clinton, are traitors and our enemies. Are we going to uphold our oath?

Wanda Martens
5 years ago
Reply to  RogerW

VOTE TRUMP! HE LOVES THIS COUNTRY!

Rob
5 years ago
Reply to  RogerW

Crooked Hiliary has already proven, she will without hesitation sacrifice anyone on her watch, for her own gain…and even lie through her reasoning and blame whatever the CIA tells her to redirect the false narrative. She is a professional liar…plus, if you ever notice, nearly every member of the Congress/Senate is a former lawyer of some kind, why is that?

A Senior Retired Veteran
5 years ago

Interesting you tag the military veteran market but yet your senior staff has no a single veteran!

Carol Menges
5 years ago

The same anti-COS Project arguments are used here as I’ve read ad nauseum from John Birch Society and Eagle Forum members, among other smaller groups. I don’t expect to change anybody’s mind here who sticks to those half-truths and lies. http://www.conventionofstate.com refutes them all. So many are itching to start a new civil war. You may get your wish. Remember though that you don’t command your heads of states nor all your citizens, and they might take exception to tribal warfare. So far recent pockets of individualized chaos haven’t worked out so well.

Our system of federalism requires some semblance of a civil society to function in order to provide a chance of renewing our culture as the Founding Fathers set it up. At the very least a Convention of States, limited to the subject of fiscal restraint, reining in the abuses of the federal government and term limits for all federal officials–not an open convention at all–would serve to build coalitions of patriots willing to hash out peaceful solutions. Before calling for war, give peace one last chance because the alternative will be far worse than anyone can yet imagine. It’s worth one’s best effort to not go off as some new reincarnation of Rambo. We need real leaders, not mobocracy wearing a uniform.

Irv C
5 years ago

I agree with you entirely! The democrats and this Obama character even IGNORE the Constitution and Congress allows it to keep happening. Totally makes me sick! What makes America so great is our Constitution. I beleive if the monsters Hillery should win.( would be fixed and not by vote) I honestly wouldn’t doubt a revolution. That’s how America started so why couldn’t it happen to save our values. I don’t want to live under communism or socialism and if I catch a transgender looking at one of my grandkids in a bathroom, I’ll end up doing life in prison! And would give more bodies if I had them but I’ve only one. As Nathan Hale said: I regret I have but one life to give for my Country. Then the hung him. American Revolution.

Michael Codding
5 years ago

Citizens concerned for the future of their country, under a federal government that’s increasingly bloated, corrupt, reckless and invasive, have a constitutional option. We can call a Convention of States to return the country to its original vision of a limited federal government that is of, by and for the people. Help restore Liberty http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=1056585

DDover
5 years ago

I’m just now learning AMAC supports the Convention of States Project. It seems a natural fit for veterans given their commitment to protect and defend the Constitution. If you’re on the fence, please consider this quote from Michael Stern, formerly senior counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives: “It can scarcely be denied that the limited powers granted to the Congress in Article I of the Constitution have not proved to be a meaningful check on the expansion of federal power. The Article V Convention, if available as intended to check the ‘encroachments of the national authority,’ would mitigate this risk.” States like Texas — and Gov. Greg Abbott — will ensure this remedy is available as intended. This is a remedy to federal overreach that the Founders intentionally provided.

PaulE
5 years ago
Reply to  DDover

This CoS “magic bullet” would end up being a bullet fired straight into the heart of the Constitution with devastating results for the entire country and its citizens. The Constitution isn’t broken. The American people are simply not doing their part, through wide-spread apathy and also unfortunately ignorance of the issues, to hold Washington and the representatives they send to Washington accountable. That’s the a fault of the Constitution. That’s a failure of the American people. Amending the Constitution will not correct the latter.

Ralph
5 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

Bullseye, Paule

Paul G
5 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

Then why, pray tell, did our Founders in their wisdom even add Article V to the Constitution if it was so perfect for all time? Your argument does not hold water.

PaulE
5 years ago
Reply to  Paul G

The Founding Fathers never envisioned that half the country would consider socialism, and all that it entails, as a preferential form of government over the representative republic they gave us.

Paul G
5 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

Pray tell, what is your solution??

PaulE
5 years ago
Reply to  Paul G

As I stated above, the only real solution, with time rapidly running out for our nation, is for the American people to stop looking for “magic fixes”, which is what a CoS is, and take their role in preserving this republic seriously. The representatives sitting in Washington, that everyone is constantly complaining about, didn’t magically drop out of the sky one day. The American people voted these ineffectual and dishonest people into office, because they were too lazy and apathetic to do thorough reseach on these bums before sending them to Washington to “represent them”. The American people then compound the problem by continuously re-electing the same bums over and over again, while whining that “nothing changes”.

If that is too much work for you or the rest of the American voting public to handle, then this is the direction and quality of government you deserve and will indeed continue to receive going forward. Right up until this political class finally decides they can do away with elections altogether without any real resistance from the general public. Then we end up like Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Zimbabwe, and all the southern European countries of the EU that are all imploding in on themselves at varying rates of decay.

The purpose of a CoS, as originally conceived by the Founding Fathers, was a last step for the unified states, all populated by citizens sharing the same common set of political values, to reign in a federal government unresponsive to the people it is supposed to serve. That nation no longer exists and hasn’t for quite some time. Today, we are not a unified nation when it comes to shared political values. Half the country believes that socialism is preferable to capitalism and that they are entitled to be taken care of, from cradle to grave, by the federal government forcibly re-distributing the personal wealth of the productive members of society to the those that feel they should be able to live as well as the productive class except without working for any of it.

In that kind of toxic political environment, where most politicans at all levels of government today, that would be involved in a CoS, are more than willing to sell out their constituents as long as it gets them re-elected the next time around, not only would Progressives (Socialists) get equal representation of people being selected to hold these discussions / negotiations, but the mainstream media, which is already fully populated by like-minded Progressives, would do everything in their power to ensure “compromises” (meaning capitulations from conservative members) were secured on every issue along the way. Politicians being what they are want to show “results” for all this effort. So they will also be pushing for “compromise” and passing things just to “do something” for all the time and money involved in this whole process.

End result will be a Constitution amended in ways most conservatives pushing for this process would never have dreamed of. Existing rights and freedoms will be weakened or eliminated outright and the 100 plus year dream of Progressive (Socialist) finally “fixing” the Constitution to their liking will be largely accomplished. Dozens and dozens of articles and position papers have been written by the left over the last century outlining exactly how they would change the Constitution, via the CoS process, if the American public could be talked into covening one.

Wanda Martens
5 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

PaulE, you are so right! For those of you who really want to learn about the CoS, please google Publius Huldah. Odd name, but she is a constitutional attorney and one of the smartest women I have ever met. She conducts lectures on why a Convention of States will not work for America. She takes no money for her lectures and will come and speak to your legislators if you want. I think she will speak to any large crowd who are interested in knowing the truth. I do not know her personally, but I had the privilege off hearing her speak at the Missouri State Capitol last spring. It was sponsored by the Concerned Women of America. I have read the entire CoS and it is full of maybe, it could be, if, etc. It is nothing but guesses and wishful thinking.

PaulE
5 years ago
Reply to  Wanda Martens

Hi Wanda,

For the technically challenged or simply lazy amongst us, I took the liberty of posting one of Huldah’s article above in which she debunks Mark Levin’s flawed understanding of both the Constitution and the so-called CoS process that he and others have been pushing for years. Have an enjoyable week.

Paul G
5 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

do not believe our Founders considered a COS to be a “magic fix” as you call it. It was meant to be a safety valve to be used in case the national government got out of hand which is exactly where we are today. Your arguments run on emotion rather than objective fact. Have you really studied all the documentation on the COS website including the support by Justice Scalia (for a limited COS) and the legal opinions in the Jefferson Statement? If not, suggest you do so.

PaulE
5 years ago
Reply to  Paul G

I’ve have been reading all the various literature on this subject, from both sides of the political spectrum, since the 1970’s. The primary academics pushing this solution have been at it for decades, but continue to refuse to acknowledge the real-world social dynamics that exist today in our modern society. To them, they envision it will all play out as it did back then. Even though even back then it was far from a smooth running process and didn’t accomplish all the so-called objectives in the way originally envisioned beforehand.

The fractured and in many cases contradictory political and societal principles of American society of the early 21st century are drastically different from the largely homogenous political principles that existed amongst Americans in the late 18th century. In practical terms, we have two almost diametrically opposed cultures living within the same geographical confines of the United States today. In very broad terms, the difference between red and blue states from a governmental perspective. So while many conservative proponents envision a process that will exclusively be controlled and run by them, the reality is the socialists and their many organized groups (the left in simple terms for the general public) and most politicians in Washington will NOT sit idly by as conservatives go merrily about dismantling the hard-won gains of progressivism (socialism) over the last 100 years.

I suggest you read several of the many articles, all written by progressive organizations or their major backers over the last 75 to 100 years they’ve been planning for such a CoS event, that outline, in specific terms, the methods they would use hijack a CoS, all under the guise of “bi-partisanship”, “equal representation” or “the spirit of compromise” and then use such a CoS to modify or nullify the specific areas of the Constitution that have restricted the government from having unlimited power over its citizens.

Ivan Berry
5 years ago
Reply to  DDover

DDover, first read Art.V to see what it really says before deciding that the article above and Amac’s advocacy is well founded. Also read what PaulE, I and others have stated as to the provisions for calling a convention before buying into the establishments so-called solution. Art.V is explicit and the call for a Convention by the States was for a run-away general government to be replaced. If you know what will replace the law, our Constitution, go right ahead. If you know who will do the rewriting of a Constitution and what it will say, go right ahead. If you have any doubts as what those in charge of calling the shots for the future might do, give it pause. Going off half-cocked can get us where we really don’t need to go. If you trust the establishment to rewrite the Constitution by Amendments, just look to the 16th and 17th Amendments to see what States ratified in the early 20th century. Are those now involved any more honest, any smarter, any less greedy, poorer organized (see: the UN and the EU), further from or closer to a one-world government? You want to take a chance on those in charge doing the right thing just this one time out of all the opportunities they have had already? Those of us who have studied it the most and have no vested interest other that restoring our national charter do not.

Wanda Martens
5 years ago
Reply to  DDover

DDover- another misinformed American. Veterans are sworn to PROTECT the Constitution, not CHANGE the Constitution. The rules of the CoS are not in Art.5. The rules, the procedure, the agenda and all the committees will be picked AFTER the convention begins. Just like any other large convention. We will be (again) at the mercy of those chosen as delegates. Who do you think the delegates will be? Good people like you, RogerW, PaulE, Irv C, IvanBerry and others that are commenting on this? No, they will be the same problem people that we have in office now. For 50 years, there have been Socialists groups, gun haters, abortionists and others waiting for the CoS so they can change our precious Constitution. Now all they have to do is sit back and wait as the so-called conservatives have taken up their cause and are running with it Also, many of these ‘conservatives’ are not conservatives at all, but rather are paid minions to push the CoS.

Paul G
5 years ago
Reply to  Wanda Martens

Your arguments run on emotion not facts. Procedural rules for the convention are in draft form now and published for all to see. Further, many legal opinions have been made about the need and safety of a limited COS and are posted on the COS Project web site if you take time to truly study them. Have found that most people against a limited COS of the sort proposed by COS Project base their arguments either on fear of the unknown or a misrepresentation of the facts surrounding a limited COS. Again, even Justice Scalia favored this event if truly needed, and boy, is it ever needed now, especially if HRC gets in office.

Paul G
5 years ago
Reply to  DDover

Amen, DDover–you see the light

Uncle Ben,
5 years ago

84, Marine, 3 steps to the right of Genghis Khan
I don’t agree with COS. Leftwingnuts are much better at trench warfare than rino’s. socialists will turn it to
their advantage and we will loose what little is left. Look at how communists, Nazis and facists gained
control of Russia, Germany and Italy. It seems more and more that Lexington and Concord is all that is
left. Our own govt regard veterans as a bigger threat than islam and doesn’t want us to have any guns.

Michael Codding
5 years ago
Reply to  Uncle Ben,

Under Article V of the Constitution, the states submit an application to congress which specifies the subject matter. In this particular case, the subject is placing limits on the federal government. No one can propose anything outside that scope. States delegates are under strict scrutiny and could face criminal charges if they deviate from their commission. Support of this COS is vital to preserve our nation for future generations. Help restore Liberty http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=1056585

Irv C
5 years ago
Reply to  Uncle Ben,

I agree sir. The Obama and his mafia henchman have hijacked the Constitution, our values, our children’s right to pee in safety and they value terrorists more than Veterans and Americans. Hillery is his clone so November will say it all. Either make America Great again or Too arms!!

Wanda Martens
5 years ago
Reply to  Uncle Ben,

Thank you for your service, sir. You are absolutely right!

Ralph
5 years ago

Join and support the AMERICAN LEGION, VFW, AMVETS, DAV, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, and any that I may have missed, who lobby congress constantly, for veterans and for constitutional government. The Congress and Senate listen to big blocks of voters, and we are with strength of numbers. Your membership means a lot. We don’t need a C o S. We need to follow the Constitution we have that has worked so well for 240 years.

Michael Codding
5 years ago
Reply to  Ralph

Ralph, you are right, we do need to follow the original Constitution, however, executive orders and the Supreme Court have modified the original meaning resulting in the current bloat and over regulation that was never intended by the founders. A COS is needed to restore original intent. Amendments are being followed and the founders provided a peaceful way of amending the Constitution. Congress will never regulate itself, the states must do it. Help restore Liberty http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=1056585

Ralph
5 years ago

Hi Michael. All of the laws that have been passed by Congress did not change the constitution. And yes I know about the amendments, like prohibition. I am talking about the other over regulation laws, that have nothing to do with the constitution or the bill of rights. Some of those laws like most of the new ones need to be revoked or changed to reflect the times, but not the constitution. I do like the idea of a simple majority in the Congress or senate being able to reverse the supreme court, which is generally against the will of the people, and the general intent of the law. This could be an ammendment which could work for both parties, if a controversial law was taken to the supreme court. They should be term limited also, look at ginsgurgs comments about Trump. Totally out of line for the candidate of any party, but she showed her true colors as a lefty. To me, they are the biggest obstacle to government of and by the PEOPLE. CoS, though, not in my opinion.

Irv C
5 years ago
Reply to  Ralph

Not to mention all those who gave their all for our Constitution. To me the current administration spits on the graves of all this who gave their all. I’m sad I had to see this happening.

Michael J. Kohl
5 years ago
Reply to  Ralph

Do you actually think that Congress will listen to you and follow the Constitution? Does the Federal government listen to us? At election time the politicians tell us what we want to hear, go to Washington DC, and do only those things that increase their personal power and wealth.

If the vets would join forces with COS the BS would stop in Washington DC.

Paul G
5 years ago
Reply to  Ralph

How’s that Constitution working now with the feds and the Supreme Court?? It’s being shredded little by little.

Wanda Martens
5 years ago
Reply to  Paul G

The finger always gets pointed back to the voter. Whose fault is it that we have a President that is doing all he can to destroy America? Whose fault is it that we keep sending spineless,money hungry, wessels to Congress? It is the voter who does not research the candidate and go to the polls and make his vote count. I get so upset with people who wait until election day to decide who to vote for and those who listen only to TV ads to make their decision. They go into the polling booth and say ‘ Oh, yes, I recognize that name so I’ll vote for him’ or ‘I am friends with his family’ or ‘Eeny, Meeny,Mighty,Mo’. Do your research, there are good candidates out there.

Paul G
5 years ago
Reply to  Ralph

Our system of government suffers from a few systemic problems that the career politicians will never fix. The huge national debt is one–no matter who is in power, the feds continue to borrow more and more $$–they have no balanced budget requirement like most of the state governments. Another systemic problem is that too many members of Congress continue to serve for 30-50 years even tho they have an 11% approval rating. Not right and must be fixed by limiting anyone serving in Congress to a total of 12-15 year service, that’s it! Another problem is the Supreme Court moving more and more to the left and making rulings that so many Americans disagree with–such as gay marriage and calling the individual mandate in Obamacare a tax when the feds themselves said it was not. What a farce. The state governments need a way to override SCOTUS rulings that are truly leftist in nature–such as an amendment to give 3/5 of the state legislatures override power on any SCOTUS decision, any Presidential executive order, and any federal regulatory agency order such as the IRS and EPA, two of the worst offenders. The balance of power needs to be reversed from the feds back to the states where we all live. These kinds of problems can only be fixed by Constitutional amendments; hence, the real need for a convention of states, fully authorized in Article V of the Constitution. Justice Scalia recommended a limited convention to remedy the kinds of problems we have today.

Learn the facts, folks, before spreading fear and misinformation about a truly limited convention of states. See http://www.conventionofstates.com

Fredrick Yerrick
5 years ago

Army Retired Vietnam Veteran who has decided to Stand up, Show up, and Speak up for American, our Convention and Freedom with Convention of States Project Article V Amendment Convention. Please join us at conventionofstates.com and cosaction.com.
We thank you!

In Liberty,
Fred Yerrick
AMAC Delegate CA52nd Congressional District
Heritage Sentinel
Convention of States Regional Captain California
[email protected]
858-722-3841

Fredrick Yerrick
5 years ago

I am a 20 Army Vietnam Veteran who has decided to Stand up, Show up , and Speak up for my Country, our Constitution and Freedom with the Convention of States Project Article V Grass Roots movement. All please join my at;
conventionofstates.com
cosaction.com
[email protected]
858-722-3841
AMAC Delegate CA 52nd Congressional District
Heritage Sentinel

Fall In!

Jim Haney
5 years ago

I also am a retiree, Vietnam Vet, Disabled Vet serving nearly 28 years in the Air Force prior to retirement. I am extremely concerned on the direction this country is taking. I am 72 years old and will not have to put up with the BS much longer, but I am extremely worried about the mess we are leaving for my grandson. His grandchildren will still be trying to dig the U.S. out of the debt that has been passed on to them. The Obama administration promised transparency but, instead have pulled an impervious shroud over there actions. I blame Obama, but more importantly, I blame our do nothing Congress for the mess that has been created. We need to make every effort to elect individuals that have some backbone and will take action to correct this mess.

Michael Codding
5 years ago
Reply to  Jim Haney

Jim, elections are important but It won’t matter who is in the oval office; Taxing, spending and regulations are out of control; we the people can change the way Washington operates with a set of Amendments to the constitution that limit both. Washington, DC, will never voluntarily relinquish power. The states must exercise Article V of the Constitution which offers the single best remedy for the crisis our nation is facing. Please ACT now; sign the petition and or volunteer below. Thank you for your commitment to restore limited constitutional government.
http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=1056585

Irv C
5 years ago
Reply to  Jim Haney

TRUMP!!!!

John W. Vettel, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
5 years ago

Having read concerns raised by folks who fear Paul’s suggestion for Veterans (and all Americans) to get involved with the process of reining in our out-of-control Federal Government, I simply suggest that readers use a little common sense.

First, who do you trust? Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Franklin, and the other folks who we call our Founders? Or do you trust those to whom you have just encountered through their fears expressed here? I am comfortable with my answer!

Second, these same fellows inserted the provision into Article V that enable the States to propose Amendments specifically to give the States the ability to overpower a tyrannical federal government – which many (including myself) feel exists right now. Were they so stupid that they would insert such a provision that could be sidetracked by same tyrannical Federal Government?

A lot of history has been written about our Founders…. and none that I’ve ever read has called any of them stupid!

“Balancing the budget by raising taxes!” GOD! Is anyone so naive to think a “Balanced Budget Amendment” would be proposed that would allow the Feds to bleed us more to balance a budget?

An Article V Convention of the States to propose amendments will be controlled entirely by the States. The only think that the Congress must do is to set the date and location – and no, they cannot set a date 100 years in the future. They MUST determine whether any amendments proposed by that convention will be ratified by (1) the State Legislatures, or (2) by conventions in the states. And there is nothing preventing any state from calling a convention within the state to advise the legislators, or to call a convention of the whole state by submitting the issue to a popular vote within the state. (a popular vote was held in one of the thirteen original states to ratify our Constitution)

There is a lot of information available at http://www.ConventionOFStates.Com. The information available there can be checked through historical documents available online at such sites as the Yale Avalon Project, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/default.asp, or in Farrands Records, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field([email protected](fr003452)) and many other sources.

I suggest you use common sense, do you own homework, or simply trust the founders.

But whatever you do…. please go to http://COSaction.Com, sign the petition, enter your name and voting address so the petition can be automatically sent to your State Legislators. Then volunteer to help convince these folks to pass a resolution applying for a Convention of States to put our federal government back under our control!

I did not fly nuclear armed B-52s to the russian border and back during the Cuban Crisis and fly 100+ Combat missions in Viet Nam so i and my childfren would have to ask our Federal Government for permission to use the bathroom! And I don’t intend to sit on my butt and let them continue to ruin this nation I fought for!

I hope you feel the same way.

Rob
5 years ago

As a recent retired U.S. Army & National Guard soldier, it has been a disgrace serving under this administration and the many Secretary’s of Defense since Obama became our dictator of the United States in 2009. I understand what the LTC is describing in his article and he is prosposing is more talk, kick the can down the road, and hopefully everyone involved will agree this is the answer to fixing the problems. I don’t think so.

Our political system is so ingrained with corruption, lawless leaders, programs that we cannot afford etc, the citizens throw their hands up in desparation for anything that may work and solve these problems at any cost. In our distant past, the original National Guard militias had to protect their states from the federal government. Of course, the federal troops will have to decide what is right or wrong and should we stand with the government, or with the people of the United States.

Maybe it’s time to make the stand against the U.S. Government again. A good revolution and reformation once describe by Thomas Jefferson may be the key to getting the attention of the law makers at the Hill, with a return to center to restore great leadership and a new direction. Sometimes a different kind of persuasion makes people consider the alternative, a totally destroyed nation where we are currently heading due to the current political parties involved.

American Veterans, your country needs you again…to take care of the problems in Washington D.C., are you game?

Ivan Berry
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob

Check out Oathkeepers.org and the writings of Dr. Edwin Verria, Jr. to see what could be done, and consider the options of Nullification when the general government oversteps its charter.
Also check reasons for Not having a COS that I mentioned below.
And all us vets should at least understand what we took an Oath to defend, even from enemies within.

Michael Codding
5 years ago
Reply to  Ivan Berry

Ivan, where in the Constitution is the concept of Nullification? If nullification were a viable option, we would be a lawless nation with total anarchy. America is unlike nations such as Cuba in that our military is under the control of WE the people and the President as commander in chief. Federal troops don’t get to decide right or wrong as Rob suggests, they follow orders which originate from the people through the chain of command starting with the (elected) Chief. Only a Constitutional amendment can force congress to balance the budget, limit taxing and spending, and add accountability to their sworn duty. Only a Constitutional amendment can limit terms for elected and appointed officials. The Constitution provides two methods of proposing amendments, one of which is via Congress, but they won’t limit themselves; the other is through to states via a convention of states. We must restore liberty before it’s too late. Join the other veterans who support COS. I have and you should too. Tell your state lawmakers to do their duty and protect you from the out-of-control federal government! http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=1056585

Irv C
5 years ago
Reply to  Ivan Berry

Obama took that oath too but he obviously wasn’t then nor isn’t now, SERIOUS!

Paul G
5 years ago
Reply to  Ivan Berry

Nullification would have to be on a state-by-state basis with endless challenges in the courts–perhaps much civil disobedience. Better route is amending the Constitution by vote of at least 38 state legislatures..

Wanda Martens
5 years ago
Reply to  Paul G

Paul G, you haven’t learned a thing from all that has been said. Please check out Publius Huldah and I think you will understand why we cannot open our Constitution up to be changed in any way.

Paul G
5 years ago
Reply to  Wanda Martens

Publius Huldah is not a creditable source on this subject. I go with Justice Scalia and other legal folks who signed the Jefferson Statement available for viewing on the COS Project website. You should try reading them.

John W. Vettel, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob

Rob, I understand your frustration, and agree that the Federal Government has been completely out of control for a long, long time. Although our Founders gave us the tool to protect the States and the People from a tyrannical, overbearing Federal Government, we failed to use it! We should have told the Federal Government to get out of our lives and put them back in their place long ago… perhaps as much as 100 years ago when they sold the nation with a bill of goods and enacted the 16th and 17th amendments (Income Tax & popular election of US Senators). Back then, people trusted the federal government to tell the truth. They thought only millionaires would pay an income tax and electing their senator would give them more say over him. Both were blatant lies!

Today, most people have wised up.

Yes! We need a revolution!

But it can be a peaceful one that restores the balance between the States & People vs the Federal Government…. OR, it can be the violent one you allude to in which untold thousands of lives would be lost with no guarantee that the result would not be a banana republic dictatorship! I suggest we get behind the approach suggested by our founders.

Many, such as Mr. Berry below, are quite ignorant of the Article V Amendments Convention process and are thus frightened of all sorts of imagined, terrible outcomes. It would be far better for our nation if these folks would take the trouble to learn the facts about Article V and the well established history of State Conventions in America before they peddle their apocalyptic views.

To learn about the Article V Convention of States for proposing Constitutional Amendments, I suggest you go to this web address: http://www.conventionofstates.com/problem

Rob
5 years ago

John…you just go ahead and play it safe, and fall in like the majority of the replies. I read the link you sent, its the same kick the can down the road mentality. All we do is talk, because it is safer and non threatening. And it’s gotten us no where, but, four/eight more years of nothing and a lot older, with broken promises that never work. Like yourself, I served my 20 + years and believed in the system and had to keep to myself of my beliefs and politics during my service. No more, I’m retired!!!

It’s worse today in our country than when I enlisted in the late 80’s…and to my surprise, our citizens, put a fascist, leftist, in charge of my country. If it takes a little revolution to clean up government and leadership, let it start.

Irv C
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob

That’s why Obullpucky (I mean Obama) has set up foreign troops to crush any uprising. But he must first grab our weapons.

114
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x