Monday, July 11, 2016

Unconstitutional Convention



By Ed Wood

Mark Levin and others are pressuring the state legislatures to call for a "Constitutional Convention," or "Convention of States," or "Assembly of States."

Doesn't matter which name you use, it's all the same thing. It is an effort not to amend our Constitution, but to change it significantly, or to replace it entirely.

Here's how:

The authorization for amending or changing the Constitution of the United States is found in Article V of the US Constitution. It is very short. Only one sentence. In fact, only the first two lines of that sentence are important, because in them, the Founding Fathers gave us two distinct methods for changing the Constitution.

Method One: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution."

Method Two: ". . . or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments."

That's it.

Should Congress act under the first option, only members of Congress participate. But, should Congress act under the second option, all Congress can do is call for a "convention," and then just sit and watch what happens. There is no provision for members of Congress to make up the body of such a convention.

The first method works fine. That is the way each of the current 27 amendments to the Constitution has been adopted. But nobody--not Mark Levin, not George Soros, not Mark Meckler, nobody--is calling for Method One. That ought to tell you something. They are all calling for Method Two, which has never been done since our current Constitution was adopted. Why? For a very good reason. Once a Constitutional Convention is called, it could be controlled by anybody, and you can bet it won't be anyone interested in maintaining the integrity of the current document.

Those calling for a Constitutional Convention have no plan to amend the current document, but to replace it entirely. How do I know? Because it is already planned, organized, and published, just waiting for the right opportunity to be implemented.

Three leftist radical groups have prepared totally new constitutions to present when such a convention is called: The Revolutionary Communist Party USA has its constitution, the Ford & Rockefeller foundations have their own "Constitution for the Newstates of America," and the George Soros funded "Constitution 2020" is offering a Marxist version. They are written, organized, published, and ready to go. Here is an excerpt from each.

1) A Constitution for the Newstates of America:

There shall be Newstates, each comprising no less than 5 percent of the whole population. Existing states may continue and may have the status of Newstates if the Boundary Commission, hereinafter provided, shall so decide.

Those who cannot contribute to productivity shall be entitled to a share of the national product, as determined by the Directors of the National Sharing Fund.

Political procedures shall be organized and supervised by Electoral Overseers who shall appoint deputies in each district and shall supervise the choice, in district and national conventions, of party administrators.

The possession of lethal weapons shall be confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law.

2) A Constitution For The New Socialist Republic In North America:
(104 pages)

PREAMBLE: A socialist state which shall achieve, together with the revolutionary struggle throughout the world, the emancipation of humanity as a whole and the opening of a whole new epoch in human history–communism. In order to bring this new socialist state into being, it would be necessary to thoroughly defeat, dismantle and abolish the capitalist-imperialist state of the United States of America.

3) Constitution 2020

George Soros is bankrolling the Constitution 2020 movement. Other principals are Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein; his wife, Samantha Powers, our current Ambassador to the UN; and recently retired US Attorney General, Eric Holder.

Its provisions include:
  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return that will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;

(I particularly like their idea of outlawing the fear of old age. That one was beginning to bother me.)

But you say that there is a Constitutional safeguard built into Article V which requires that whatever is proposed must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. No, not necessarily. Once the convention meets, they can change the ratification requirement, or eliminate it entirely. There would be no limit as to what they could do. That is why it has never been done before. And with all the left-wing radical influences we now have, this is certainly not the time to try it!

So where do we stand? Under Method 2, the legislatures of two thirds of the states (34) may request that Congress call such a Convention. Twenty-nine mostly liberal states have already signed on, so only five more are needed—or two more, depending upon who is doing the counting. The TN Senate has already voted to sign on, and implementation is awaiting House approval in the next General Assembly session.

It's just ignorance, that's all. This is a serious threat to the very basis of our Constitutional Republic form of government, and, unfortunately, most of us are not aware of the dangers involved. I do believe Representative Kevin Dunlap (D-43) is a patriot, and wants only the best for our nation. I do believe Mark Levin is a patriot. I listen to him every night. I just don't know where he is coming from, unless it is to promote his radio program and sell his new books.

The consequence is frightening.

Ed Wood passed away last year. He was a first rate writer and a first rate friend who will be sorely missed. Ed wrote the above piece in July of 2015, hoping to educate an American public which is being deliberately kept in the dark about the irreparable dangers inherent in a Constitutional Convention. 

30 comments:

  1. Hogwash!

    A Convention called to propose Amendments will do exactly that and nothing more. This is not a Constitutional Convention, only an Amendment Convention. Name Mark Levin as chairman of the Convention and see if that won't limit any mischief.

    Besides, any proposed change to the Constitution still requires a three-fourths majority for ratification and that is a high barrier indeed.

    There are some things that Congress simply will not do, such as adopt term limits, repeal the 17th or accept a balanced budget, no matter how much We The People want them. And right about now, I trust my fellow citizens one hell of a lot more than I trust those Uniparty clowns now dragging us to perdition.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The scope of the Convention of States' call is limited to proposing amendments that would 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 (including Justices) and for members of Congress.

    We've depended on Congress to propose amendments up to now - how is that working out for us??

    I can't say there is no risk involved, but it is a tiny risk compared to the lawlessness we have seen in just the past 2 weeks. If you want to do nothing and pray for better results, good luck.

    If you'd like to help us, join us at www.conventionofstates.com and help shape history.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My God, the scare tactics used in this piece are unprecedented for opposition to a Convention of States. I represent the Convention of States Project which wants to amend the Constitution to transfer power from the Feds back to the States and the people as the Framers originally intended. This will be done by tightening the definitions of the general welfare and commerce clauses, limiting spending and taxation and term limiting congressmen and fed judges. We have 8 states that have signed on and many more with proposals in both houses. In mid-June of this year the Assembly of State Legislatures put together rules for the convention. We are proceeding in an orderly manner to put together a convention with a stated purpose. Any rational person would realize that our Country is in trouble because of the corruption and greed in DC. To think that the Congress under method 1 would pass amendments we are proposing is pure stupidity.

    I don't know how the author can assume that any Convention of States could propose and pass a whole new Constitution. Only the crazy, no common sense progressives could think this was possible. I don't think Mr. Wood was nor Mr. Book is a progressive.

    Learn more about our movement at conventionofstates.com. There's a petition you can sign and many ways to volunteer to join the fight.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nonsense. All these talking points come from groups like the John Birch Society JBS, which is frozen with fear, used to *promote* Article V Conventions, and have not accomplished a thing in 58 years to stop government tyranny. I one wants to fail like that, then listen to the anti-Constitutional rant above. I say that because Article V is from the Constitution and was 100% approved by the Framers of the Constitution.
    They said:
    Violence is not the first answer, and should be avoided. The founders knew that well having lived through it. And for that reason they placed Article V in the Constitution.
    --
    Amendments should be provided to correct defects, thus preventing “chance and violence”
    >http://indianaliberty.weebly.com/blog/convention-debates-june-11-1787
    --

    Help us avoid another disastrous civil war and Sign the Convention of States Petition http://bit.ly/COSpetition and join the fight

    ReplyDelete
  5. George Mason viewed the second method as necessary - especially when the national government and congress in particular are irresponsible, corrupt and unresponsive to We The People:

    James Madison wrote later about the constitutional convention debates (before the provision for state-called amending convention was added): “Col. “Mason thought the plan of amending the constitution exceptionable & dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and 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””

    ReplyDelete
  6. All the replies to this ridiculous position state what, to most studied individuals, i.e. those who've paid attention, echo the facts about an Article V convention of the States. Its sole purpose is to propose amendments to (not rewrite) the US Constitution. The ideas presented by Mr. Wood obviously side with the status quo where the federal government continues to usurp the rights of the states and the rights of the people. Blatant Kool Ade drinking. If the ideas fostered by TCT and its sister site are represented by Mr. Wood's uninformed tirade, it is clear this group of pseudo conservatives' mission is to continue to rob the states and the people of the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution. Shame on them for identifying themselves as conservatives. Subversives more accurately describes this kind of thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your premis statement is incorrect. An Article V convention is strictly for proposing amendments to THIS constitution. Moreover, topics discussed are limited to the subject as specified in 34 state applications. This type of meeting happens frequently in all 50 state legislatures and in congress. Those meetings do not run away, neither will the Article V convention which has 50 state legislatures monitoring the proceedings. We need to return to the original intent of limited government using Article V.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Mike, You are correct. There have been more than 30 "conventions", "congresses" (now not used as that is the term for our national legislature), "compacts" and "conferences" in America since 1690. The first was the "Dissolution of the Dominion of New England" (King James II had decided to consolidate and rename the colonies. After he was chased out of England, they held this Convention to re-establish their colonial governments.) In 1861 the Washington Peace Conference was held between the states bordering those who had succeeded, to try and prevent the Civil War. There is a Colorado River Compact today that is the 7 states that take water from the Colorado River, it was formed in 1922, and the Hoover Dam was built as a result. Some are "general" (all states), some are "partial" (some states). Some have a topic (use of the Potomac River) others are "plenipotentiary" (topic is wide open). The Framers were familiar with this device and used it 21 times prior to Independence, that is why further instructions are not provided in the Constitution. The Constitution itself says in Article V it is a "convention for proposing amendments". It is time to use this device and rein in the size and scope of the federal government. Let's DO this!

      Delete
  8. There are quite a number of fallacies in this article, but I'll touch upon just a couple:
    "Those calling for a Constitutional Convention have no plan to amend the current document, but to replace it entirely."
    An Article V convention derives its authority from the terms of Article V itself and is therefore limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution we already have, not to replace the Constitution.

    "Three leftist radical groups have prepared totally new constitutions to present when such a convention is called..."
    Even w/ the most absurd assumption that a convention will entertain leftist proposals at an amendment convention, do you really think that a proposed amendment that is not within the scope of the application calling for the convention will not be immediately challenged and defeated in court?! Do you really think 38 states will ratify a proposed amendment that takes away rights from the states?!

    I could go on, but the author and readers will be better served by looking at http://www.conventionofstates.com/five_myths_about_article_v

    A brief synopsis addressing the fear mongering can be found at:
    http://www.conventionofstates.com/short_answers_to_common_questions

    Please look at http://www.conventionofstates.com/learn to learn more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether or not a court would approve an outlandish, illegal amendment, 3/4 of the states would not ratify it anyway. www.conventionofstates.com

      Delete
  9. At the end of the Constitutional Convention, Dr. Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What do we have, a Republic or a Monarchy? “ Dr. Franklin replied, A Republic, if you can hold it!”
    Some will lead you to believe that an Article V call for an Amendments Convention could lead to a run-a-way Convention. They further believe that the Delegates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 violated their authority when they created our Constitution. James Madison started the call to Convention to correct the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. The delegates followed their instructions and determined the Articles to be to weak to correct the deficiencies and thus abolished and established our Constitution.
    Understanding historical Calls is important to knowing that even though the Call to correct the deficiencies resulted in a proposed Constitution, the States had to ratify the Constitution for it to be established. When the required 34 States approve the Call for an Article V Amendment Convention, it takes 38 States to ratify any proposed Amendment.
    Please read Senator Mike Lee’s book, “Our lost Constitution “ and Governor Greg Abbott's book, "Broken but Unbowed"! Join us at conventionofstates.com and cosaction.com. We thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. At the end of the Constitutional Convention, Dr. Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What do we have, a Republic or a Monarchy? “ Dr. Franklin replied, A Republic, if you can hold it!”
    Some will lead you to believe that an Article V call for an Amendments Convention could lead to a run-a-way Convention. They further believe that the Delegates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 violated their authority when they created our Constitution. James Madison started the call to Convention to correct the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. The delegates followed their instructions and determined the Articles to be to weak to correct the deficiencies and thus abolished and established our Constitution.
    Understanding historical Calls is important to knowing that even though the Call to correct the deficiencies resulted in a proposed Constitution, the States had to ratify the Constitution for it to be established. When the required 34 States approve the Call for an Article V Amendment Convention, it takes 38 States to ratify any proposed Amendment.
    Please read Senator Mike Lee’s book, “Our lost Constitution “ and Governor Greg Abbott's book, "Broken but Unbowed"! Join us at conventionofstates.com and cosaction.com. We thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There are many great comments here that refute the ridiculous presentation. I particularly like the one about such fear mongering being subversive in itself. www.conventionofstates.com

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is not a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the Constitution, but an Article V Convention of States to PROPOSE Amendments to the Constitution and 38 have to pass any proposed amendment. Do I need to underline that? 38 States have to pass any proposed amendment. It takes only 13 State houses to block any proposal. I'm more worried about runaway government stealing my children's and grandchildren's future-- almost 20 TRILLION in debt !! The COS Project application has already been passed by 8 states and 20 or more
    state houses. This application is limited to 3 areas:

    (a) Impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government. (Including
    campaign finances)
    (b) Limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
    (c) Limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress.

    Please encourage your local state rep to become
    more involved in States' rights. Visit here to learn more, sign the petition, and sign up to volunteer:
    http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=1636326

    ReplyDelete
  13. Convention of States is not about an agenda to change things the way we, the grassroot supporters want them changed. Rather, it is our goal for ALL Americans to come together and become more involved in AlL our decisions as citizens of this great U.S. We are working with the state legislators to identify the amendments needed to rein in the out of control federal government. COS is a facilitator, not an agenda organization. Right now, we have only 4 options available to us as a nation:
    1) Anarchy, 2) Revolution, 3) Do Nothing, OR #4 Call a Convention of States. There should be not confusion about this opportunity! Our founding fathers knew that the federal government would become tyrannical, and wrote Article V of the Constitution giving the states freedom to take back our God-given rights! If someone does not want to be part of our COS movement, then, just get out of the way! We will prevail! We have passed this COS in 8 states, 9 more are almost ready to ratify, and we only need 19 more! WE will get our freedoms back! Go to www.conventionofstates.com and be part of the solution
    WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE OUR FREEDOMS! BUT WE SURELY WILL IF WE DO NOT STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. The runaway convention myth.

    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conventionofstates/pages/263/attachments/original/1448454678/Article_3-Answering_the_Runaway_Convention_Myth.pdf?1448454678

    http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=246073

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ed, you need to read your history books and study the historical basis and discussions at the founding for Article V. We are in fact living in a post-constitutional period. Just look at the STRUCTURE of our current federal government and how it is operating outside of its enumerated powers. Congress (our representatives) are no longer passing laws; the unelected bureaucrats are writing AND enforcing new laws (illegally of course). Many of our federal judges are vocally opposed to the U.S. Constitution although they all swore an oath (like the darn politicians) to uphold the constitution! We already have a runway communist / Marxist / totalitarian leaning federal government (some Republicans and most Democrats). Without a Convention of States, our republic is lost!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Misleading We the people that Article V calls for a Constitutional Convention only perpetuates the tyranny that we face from our Fed. Govt. Article V was passed unanimously to give the States and We the People the ability to reign in an oppressive Govt. The rules for a Convention to PROPOSE Amendments have been drafted and will eliminate any doubt that a runaway Convention will take place. The only fear we have is fear itself. Capitalizing on people's fears is counter productive and will accomplish nothing and we will continue Federal Govt. destruction of our freedoms. "Liberty once lost will never return." John Adams.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Do not listen to this author or other naysayers. This is NOT a Constitutional Convention. The convention in 1787 was creating a new government from scratch. The Article V convention, this is VITAL to understand, would operate WITHIN the existing Constitution. Additionally a runaway convention is not possible because a) the convention is called for a specific purpose and can only be used for that purpose, i.e. for ending government overreach. b) Amendments still have to pass state legislatures of 38 states. Those who are benefiting from the current Constitutional lawlessnes are spreading lies about Article V. Please do the research for yourself, www.conventionofstates.com

    ReplyDelete
  18. Why do people keep publishing articles trying to present themselves as an authority on the subject of a convention of states without even understanding (or citing) the basic principle that a convention does not have the authority to amend the constitution? Any recommendations would have to be approved by 3/4 of the states. Further ignorance on the subject was demonstrated by the rules committee for the RNC on Thursday, July 14, when the subject of a convention of states was introduced.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Please, learn your facts before you blog. A Convention of States is our onLy way out of this mess. Are you tired of a corrupt Washington? Well, the founding fathers saw into the future. They gave us an Article V. Go here to learn more: http://www.convention of States.com And sign the petition here: http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=898217 If you don't educate yourselves on a Convention of States you have no one to blame but yourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "...you can bet it won't be anyone interested in maintaining the integrity of the current document."

    The modus operandi of the current federal government is runaway spending, disastrous regulations and dangerous criminal activity with absolutely no concern for the integrity of our current constitution. The triple requirement of 3 votes from the states (to propose a convention, amendment/s and ratification) is logically far less disconcerting than this train wreck we are currently riding on. Please come let us reason together without those in congress who've caused this mess before we careen over the cliff. The John Birch Society and Eagle Forum suggest we continue beating our heads against a wall hoping we can vote in enough federal politicians with sufficient amounts of integrity and miraculous hutzpah to solve our problems. This has not worked for the past 25 years, why would it all of sudden be successful now?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mr. Wood really needed help understanding the Article V Convention of States process. Right off the top the author demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge in the area of Article V or whatever is it titled as he can’t seem to pin it down. For the sake of argument let’s call it a Convention of States.

    “It is an effort not to amend our Constitution, but to change it significantly, or to replace it entirely.”

    But that is exactly what Article V is, the process by which to amend. And our Founding Father gave us Article V as a means to rein in an out of control government. Under the proposed language of the resolution the purpose is to Limit the power and scope of the federal government, create a balance d budget amendment and install term limits. Now before we go any further I’ll point out what the author failed to address. This is a process to PROPOSE amendments. Whatever the outcome of the Convention of States not a single amendment will have been enacted into law. Again this is to create proposed amendments to go before all states for ratification. And then it takes ¾ of all states to ratify. What we can see here is the author attempting to introduce “fear” of the process. If you truly wish to be afraid of something, consider that when the U.S. Congress is in session in effect this is an out of control Convention of States.

    “But, should Congress act under the second option, all Congress can do is call for a "convention," and then just sit and watch what happens. There is no provision for members of Congress to make up the body of such a convention.”

    Here again the author demonstrates a complete and total lack of understanding of the purpose of the second option, and that option was specifically designed to bypass Congress. What good would it do to invite the entity that has been causing the problems in the first place to the process that is going to set it right? Why would you ask that body to exert control over the proceeding?

    “The first method works fine. That is the way each of the current 27 amendments to the Constitution has been adopted. But nobody--not Mark Levin, not George Soros, not Mark Meckler, nobody--is calling for Method One.”

    I’ll give the author this, the first 27 were created by “Method One”. As for nobody calling for Method One, that’s where he got it worry. There have been numerous attempt to create a Balance Budget Amendment, it started in 1936, 80 years later were still asking for a Method One Balance Budget Amendment. As for Method One working fine, consider Prohibition, the 18th Amendment being repealed by the 21 amendment and what of the 17th amendment removing power from the states to satisfy “popular” vote. Fine? Categorically incorrect.

    “Those calling for a Constitutional Convention have no plan to amend the current document, but to replace it entirely.”

    Insert face plant here. Over 400 attempts have been made to call for a Convention of States. Ultimately the reason this has failed in the past is because the language was not consistent in the applications. Why is that important? Of the 8 states that have passed the resolution calling for a Convention of States the language is identical in each resolution. The language used cannot replace the Constitution. The language limits the proposed amendments to that of fiscal restraint, limiting the scope and jurisdiction of the federal government and installing term limits. With that language in mind it is impossible to replace the Constitution. Add to that The Bill of Rights is COMPLETELY off the table, cannot be touched by the subject matter.

    It is unfortunate that Mr. Wood passed away last year, he departed without an understanding of Article V. He cites Mark Levin as a supporter of Article V, did he know that Mark was opposed to the use of Article V until he took the time to read and understand its use? Is a Constitutional Convention dangerous, probably so but then again we are not talking about a Constitutional Convention, we are calling for an Article V Convention of States!

    ReplyDelete
  22. It won't run away as the states send instructions to the delegates. Needs 3/4 for ratification.

    ReplyDelete
  23. More fear mongering. But never a alternate solution to move the balance of power closer to the states and We the People. Article V is in place for a reason; to curb the power of an overreaching federal leviathan that sucks everything into its wake. Sound familiar. I am so sick and tired of all the hand wringing and the paralysis. Join the fight today.

    ReplyDelete
  24. More fear mongering. But never a alternate solution to move the balance of power closer to the states and We the People. Article V is in place for a reason; to curb the power of an overreaching federal leviathan that sucks everything into its wake. Sound familiar. I am so sick and tired of all the hand wringing and the paralysis. Join the fight today.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This article was obviously written by someone who did limited research on the internet and did not vet his sources.

    Robert Natelson is widely acknowledged to be the nations prime authority on Article 5 conventions, and other matters of the Constitution, so much so that Supreme Court justices have cited his works 17 times in five different cases since 2013. During the Supreme Court term ending in June, 2016 parties referenced his work in 12 different briefs and petitions for certioriari.

    He's the authority and he says the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiJcdgMa9Cs

    You can put your faith in a half researched hit piece or listen to a real expert.

    And you can leave things as they are if you are one of the 11% who approve of Congress these days, and wait for the economic collapse that will be brought on by $140 Trillion in Unfunded Liabilities, or whine that "Somebody needs to do something."

    Convention of States is doing something. Third option is to join us at: http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=1582648

    ReplyDelete
  26. About the only thing that was truthful and/or correct that the author wrote was citation of the plain text of the constitution: "or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments." What part of "for proposing a convention for proposing amendments' is too complicated for the author to understand. Anything beyond an amendments convention would be extra-constitutional on its face, a fact that would be recognized by every state participating, let alone the 38 that would be needed to ratify the fruits of any convention that was called. How to spot a "con-con" drone? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VelI6SyKjFI&list=PL8h4sleiAEjXw-1aYw1kJlf3zTsEnZYKl&index=2

    ReplyDelete
  27. Fearmongering is the ruse used by those people who benefit from an overreaching federal government.
    Congress will never do anything that reins on the power the have usurped from the states and the people.
    Only a convention of states that's purpose is to propose amendments to the constitution that are ratified by 38 State Legislature.
    Mr Wood was confused and mistaken when he wrote this article, and since having died, doesn't make his argument sound now.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Excellent! Don't mind the constitutional re-writers that survive by cutting and pasting and not knowing what they are talking about.

    I'm with you on this. Please reach out directly to me at: guardtheconstitution@gmail.com.

    ReplyDelete