According to a Gallup poll published on October 13, 2010, 59 percent of Americans think the federal government has too much power. This represents a dramatic, 20-percent increase over the past seven years. Furthermore, we’ve all witnessed an amazing series of federal power grabs in the past few years: the bailouts, the government takeovers, the stimulus bill, the healthcare “reform” law known as ObamaCare, the financial regulatory law, the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases, the trillion-dollar deficits. Among constitutionalists, libertarians, Tea Party activists, Republicans, and Independents, the common expression is that our federal government is “out of control.”

The Tenth Amendment Movement
In 2008, Oklahoma state Representative Charles Key put into motion a new movement to rein in the federal government based on the Tenth Amendment, which holds that besides those few and defined powers expressly delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, all other powers are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Rep. Key’s Resolution 1089 powerfully asserts:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

Economics professor Walter E. Williams provided a major publicity assist to Rep. Key’s effort with his nationally syndicated column on July 16, 2008, entitled “Oklahoma Rebellion.” Dr. Williams concluded his article by saying: “State efforts, such as Oklahoma’s, create a glimmer of hope that one day Americans and their elected representatives will realize that the federal government is the creation of the states.”

Over the next two years this “glimmer of hope” became a reality, as the Tenth Amendment movement spread rapidly throughout the nation. Already by the end of 2009, 38 states had introduced Tenth Amendment resolutions based on the Oklahoma model. By 2010, 21 states had passed a Tenth Amendment resolution in one or both houses, and five Governors had gone on to sign their state’s resolution.

This unprecedented assertion of state sovereignty over those powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution reflects a widespread awakening of millions of Americans, and large numbers of state legislators, regarding the importance of reining in the federal government by insisting on adherence to the Constitution.

The Founders of our Republic did not intend that state nullification would be the ordinary means of reining in federal usurpations; the constitutional system they provided us relies primarily on the prudence and vigilance of the citizens to place responsible men and women in Congress who will pass laws agreeable to the Constitution, and who will keep the executive and judicial branches from overreaching their bounds. The November 2010 congressional elections demonstrated that informed, responsible voters can indeed still “throw the bums out” who disregard the Constitution. However, it is very unlikely that the electoral changes were sufficient to effect the size of roll-back needed to cut the federal government back to its proper size and halt its unconstitutional interference in state, local, and personal matters. State nullification is a fail-safe feature inherent in the very makeup of our system of government as agreed to by the original 13 states.

Shall We Enforce the Constitution 
or Revise the Constitution?
The movement to restore the Constitution, however, has encountered a fork in the road. One path builds on the Tenth Amendment movement by introducing and passing measures in state legislatures to nullify various unconstitutional federal laws, such as federal firearms laws and ObamaCare. Let’s call this choice, “States Enforce the Constitution.” The adherents of the second path seek to convince constitutionalists that what’s needed to rein in the federal government is a constitutional convention (Con-Con) as provided for by Article V of the Constitution to propose some new amendments to the Constitution. Let’s call this choice, “States Revise the Constitution.”

To choose the correct choice, we must understand the problem — namely that all three branches of the federal government routinely disregard major portions of the Constitution, despite the fact that the original 13 states created a compact, or agreement, designating as their agent, a federal government composed of executive, legislative, and judicial branches with their powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Thus, the states must re-assert themselves soon as the parties to the original compact that established the federal government as their agent and enforce the Constitution, or face eventual extinction at the hands of the federal government. As James Madison wrote regarding the states, “There can be no tribunal above [the states’] authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated.”

The enforcement-through-state-nullification route builds on the ideas of the Founders and posits that the states, which created the federal government in the first place, can begin re-asserting themselves immediately by virtue of their superior status as the creators of the federal government and by using those powers never delegated to the federal government. In contrast, revising the Constitution through an Article V convention would not immediately reassert the dominance of the states over the federal government; hence, the federal government would be permitted to continue to operate according to its self-assigned role as ultimate arbiter of violations of the constitutional compact. This in turn would delay the necessary reassertion by the states of their superior status over the federal government while everyone is kept waiting for a possible realignment of state-federal power to emerge from an Article V constitutional amendment process. Meanwhile, the federal government would continue to increase its control over the states and their citizens — taking our freedoms, rights, and money.

The Constitution and 
State Nullification
None other than Thomas Jefferson provided the rationale for the states to rein in an errant federal government by enforcing the Constitution through nullification. In 1798, both Jefferson and James Madison were greatly alarmed and personally threatened by the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts that had been passed by the Federalists. It is very significant that they didn’t recommend the convening of a new constitutional convention as provided for by Article V of the Constitution.

Not only did Jefferson completely ignore an Article V constitutional convention as a remedy for what he considered an out-of-control federal government, he went on to provide us with both the conceptual framework and specific word for reining in such an out-of-control federal government — nullification. He did this with his Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799:

If those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, an annihilation of the state governments, and the creation, upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence.

Jefferson wisely warned that allowing the central government to be the sole judge of the extent of its own powers would result in “nothing short of despotism.” He held further that “the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, That a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.” (Emphasis added.)

Two hundred eleven years later, Jefferson’s “rightful remedy” for unconstitutional actions by the federal government is very much alive. Earlier this year, historian Thomas Woods published his new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, which provides an overview of the many applications of the nullification concept in our nation’s history. A leading current example is the national movement among state legislatures to nullify the Individual Mandate of the ObamaCare law. Since the “Freedom of Choice in Health Care” model legislation was introduced in December 2008, it has been filed or pre-filed in 38 states. It has been enacted into law in six states (Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, and Virginia), passed but vetoed by the Governor in Florida and Oklahoma, and placed on the November 2, 2010 ballot as a constitutional amendment in Arizona, Colorado, and Oklahoma. On November 2, Oklahoma voters passed a constitutional amendment to nullify the Individual Mandate of ObamaCare by 65 percent to 35 percent, Arizona passed its amendment by a vote of 55 percent to 45 percent, and Colorado narrowly rejected its amendment by a vote of 47 percent to 53 percent.

Although this partial nullification of the unconstitutional ObamaCare law is a good first step, two leading supporters of the Tenth Amendment movement, The John Birch Society and the Tenth Amendment Center, have introduced model legislation for state nullification of the entire ObamaCare law. Since the Individual Mandate is such a tiny portion of the ObamaCare law, and since the unconstitutional remainder of the law would be more than enough to complete a government takeover of our nation’s healthcare system even without the Individual Mandate, the entire ObamaCare law should be nullified.

Revision Risks Great Under Con-Con
In contrast to the state nullification path, attempting to rein in the federal government by revising the Constitution through a new constitutional convention convened according to Article V is inherently very, very risky.

The major risks are:

• Once called, a Constitutional Convention becomes its own authority and cannot be limited;

• A corollary to the point above is that a Con-Con may become a “runaway convention” that drastically alters our form of government, or throws out the Constitution altogether and establishes an entirely new system of governance.

• It is absurd to believe that a majority (or even a sizable minority) of the individuals likely to be delegates to a Con-Con today would compare favorably with our nation’s Founders or share their commitment to liberty and limited government.

• The general public’s understanding of our Constitution has deteriorated greatly, while dependence on government programs has dramatically escalated since our founding, with both of these factors militating for bigger and bigger government.

Nevertheless, a number of organizations are lobbying furiously for a Con-Con, so we will spend most of the rest of this article detailing why convening one is inherently dangerous, focusing on the four points mentioned above. Con-Con advocates appeal to various constituencies with proposed amendments to require a balanced federal budget, term limits for Congress, a presidential line-item veto, as well as a number of other proposals. Article V of our Constitution, they point out, provides for calling a Con-Con upon “the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States.” Which means that once 34 states apply for a Con-Con, Congress must initiate a convention.

Con-Con proponents argue that worries over whether the convention may exceed its mandate are unfounded, since the state legislatures can limit the Con-Con to consideration of a single issue, such as a Balanced Budget Amendment. However, against these unsupported assurances, we respond with the learned opinions of jurists and constitutional experts from the Founding era to the present, as well as with the unanswerable argument of experience.

James Madison himself, father of the Constitution, warned against convening a second constitutional convention. When he learned that New York and Virginia were actively calling for an Article V convention in 1788, just months since ratification of the Constitution, he was horrified. He counseled:

If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress.... It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides … [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts … might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.... 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 in America. [From a letter by James Madison to G.L. Turberville, November 2, 1788.]

There in a nutshell you have the basic warning by The John Birch Society, the Eagle Forum, the American Policy Center, and many other constitutionalist organizations, against the convening of an Article V constitutional convention.

Madison clearly did not believe that a Con-Con could be limited and trembled at the thought of one. Madison’s view that it is impractical, or even impossible, to limit a Con-Con is shared by a wide array of jurists and legal scholars, including noted Democrats and Republicans, liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Among those who have addressed this issue are former Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Warren E. Burger, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, Prof. Lawrence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School, Prof. Charles E. Rice of Notre Dame Law School, Prof. Thomas I. Emerson of Yale Law School, and Prof. Gerald Gunther of Stanford University Law School.

No Protection 
Against Convention
Another scholar who has weighed in on this issue is Judge Robert Bork, who served as Solicitor General, acting Attorney General, and judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a letter to State Representative Reese Hunter of Utah on January 16, 1990, Judge Bork stated:

Specifically, you asked for my opinion on the question: “Can a constitutional convention be limited by Congress or the states to a single issue?”… It is my view … that a federal constitutional convention could not be limited to a single issue.... The original Philadelphia convention went well beyond the purposes for which it was called and nobody has suggested the Constitution is a nullity for that reason.

Accordingly, I do not see how a convention could be limited to one topic once it had been called.

As Judge Bork noted, our original Constitutional Convention of 1787, which would be a powerful precedent for any new constitutional convention, was a “runaway” convention in the sense that the delegates exceeded both their instructions from the Confederate Congress and the original agreement between the 13 states, the Articles of Confederation. The Confederate Congress convened the convention for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” Nevertheless, the Constitutional Convention immediately set about devising an entirely new plan of government that would replace wholly the Articles of Confederation and establish a completely new national legislature in place of the then-existing Confederate Congress. Then, even though Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required that all alterations in the Articles be approved by the unanimous consent of the state legislatures of all of the states, the Constitutional Convention created its own provisions for ratification in Article VII of the new Constitution: 1) only nine states would be required to ratify this new Constitution instead of 13; and 2) ratification of the new Constitution would be accomplished through state conventions, not state legislatures.

That is the only Con-Con we have experienced. We are extremely fortunate that it resulted in the “Miracle in Philadelphia” and not the “Debacle in Philadelphia.” The citizens of our nation have been blessed with great personal freedom and prosperity for the past 221 years since the Constitution of 1787 went into effect. However, the above evidence shows just how independent and even high-handed such a runaway convention can be. Even though pro Con-Con advocates often take great pains to assure us that a new Article V convention for proposing amendments would not lead to a runaway convention, the most prominent precedent, the Constitutional Convention of 1787, makes fears of a new runaway convention seem quite realistic.

State Ratification No Cure-all
Note at this point that, despite assurances of the pro Con-Con advocates that we would be protected from any “bad” or “crazy” amendments proposed by an Article V convention because all such amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the states before being added to the Constitution, a modern-day Con-Con could change the ratification process, as was the case with the Convention of 1787, or that under Article V Congress could choose whether amendments are ratified by state legislatures or state conventions. Our original Constitutional Convention in 1787 specified state conventions for ratification of their new creation. Since the time of the adoption of the new Constitution, Congress has chosen state legislatures as the mode of ratification for amendments — except in the case of the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition. In that case, Congress, lacking confidence that it would be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, opted for ratification by special state conventions instead.

While the additional requirement of ratification by three-fourths of the states does provide some protection from “bad” or “crazy” amendments, we all know just how many tens of millions, and perhaps hundreds of millions, of dollars can be mobilized by special interest groups to influence Americans in elections. If some “individuals of insidious views” could succeed in getting damaging amendments proposed in an Article V constitutional convention, then it’s probable that many political and special-interest organizations with deep pockets, as well as the biased mainstream media, would get involved in a huge way to promote the ratification of any amendments that would further their agenda.

Will Madisons and Washingtons 
Run a New Con-Con?
Historians and political observers from throughout the world have marveled at the constitutional creation that emerged from the Philadelphia convention of 1787. The caliber and character of the men involved in that great endeavor, all agree, were remarkable: George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, George Mason, Edmund Randolph, Rufus King, Roger Sherman, John Rutledge, et al.

Are we likely to see a similar constellation of statesmen should a new Con-Con be called? Or would we be more likely to be convening an experiment that would end up placing our Constitution, our liberty, and the future of our children’s children in the hands of politicians of the ilk of Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich, Harry Reid, John McCain, and Barney Frank?

As noted above, not only must we contend with the fact that most of the politicians in power at the state and federal levels do not share the constitutionalist views of the Founders, but most of our fellow citizens are woefully uneducated regarding the Constitution. Very few have actually read it and fewer still have read The Federalist Papers, which were written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay as popular essays to explain the Constitution to the American people of their day.

Pro Con-Con Organizations Are Lobbying State Legislators
Space does not permit the listing of all the organizations and individuals that are contacting state legislators this winter with the goal of influencing at least 34 state legislatures to introduce and pass a resolution during the 2011 session petitioning Congress to call an Article V constitutional convention to propose one or more amendments. However, here’s a statement from just one of the pro Con-Con organizations that shows how organized and committed they are to getting their model Con-Con call resolution passed by 34 states in 2011:

In January of 2011 history will be made when the same Article V Convention Resolution is introduced in every state legislature in the United States. Never before has the same call for an Amendments Convention occurred at the same time. The 10 Amendments for Freedom organization is well on its way to having a sponsor in every state which will introduce the same resolution.

— 10 Amendments for Freedom, www.10amendments.org, August 4, 2010

Thirty Years of Con-Con Battles
This battle over whether to convene an Article V constitutional convention is not new. Back in 1983 Missouri became the 32nd state to petition Congress to convene a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).

Since one of the major selling points for the pro Con-Con advocates is that state legislatures can restrict a constitutional convention as to which amendments or what subject matter can be considered, a separate count is maintained for the number of states that make a Con-Con call for each type of amendment(s). By this accounting only two more states would have been needed to force Congress to convene a Con-Con to consider proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment.

About this time members of The John Birch Society (JBS) and their allies got involved in persuading state legislators in the remaining 18 states against issuing any more BBA Con-Con calls. Not only was the BBA Con-Con movement stopped dead in its tracks, but JBS members went on the offense and worked with state legislators to introduce and pass resolutions to rescind all previous Con-Con calls. Beginning with Alabama and Florida in 1988, a total of 17 state legislatures (Ala., Ariz., Ga., Idaho, Fla., La., Mont., N.D., N.H., Okla., Ore., S.C., S.D., Tenn., Va., Utah, and Wy.) have become so thoroughly convinced of the dangers of a constitutional convention that they have voted to rescind (take back) all previous Con-Con calls in their states. This total was reduced by one this year when Florida issued a new BBA Con-Con call. So the total of states that have rescinded their calls now stands at 16. See the maps at the end of this article for the 32 states that have issued BBA Con-Con calls (Figure 1) and the 16 states that have rescinded all of their previous Con-Con calls (Figure 2).

Persuade State Legislators to Enforce, Not Revise, the Constitution
If you would like to help in a grassroots action project in your state to rein in the federal government by (1) persuading state legislators to enforce the Constitution through nullification of the entire ObamaCare law and other unconstitutional federal laws, (2) stopping the new drive to revise the Constitution by defeating all Con-Con call resolutions, and (3) preserving the Constitution by persuading state legislators to introduce and pass Con-Con rescission resolutions in those 34 states that haven’t done so, then go to http://www.JBS.org/StopObamaCare and http://www.JBS.org/StopACon-Con. These are the web pages for two of The John Birch Society’s highest priority action projects: “Choose Freedom — STOP ObamaCare” and “Choose Freedom — STOP A Con-Con.”

Given the two-year cycle of state legislatures whereby state legislators are elected in the general elections held in early November of even-numbered years and open their legislative sessions very soon after January 1, the critical time for contacting state legislators regarding nullification of ObamaCare, blocking calls for a Con-Con, and rescinding all previous calls for a Con-Con is this present month of December 2010 and the first few months of 2011. In many states a vote on a Con-Con call could occur as early as the first week or two of January. Time is of the essence.

Preserve Our Freedom
If we are to preserve our freedom under the Constitution, then the states must rein in our out-of-control federal government by enforcing the Constitution through nullification of unconstitutional federal laws, rather than by revising the Constitution through an inherently risky constitutional convention process!

[Click here to download a PDF of this article as it appeared in print in the December 6, 2010 issue of The New American magazine; the PDF includes a "Key Quotes" sidebar that has not been included in this online article. Click here to buy reprints of this article as it appeared in the December 6, 2010 issue of The New American.]

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (22)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

T. Dan Tolleson said:

Thanks, Larry, for giving us a "tour de force" of the options now facing our nation. This quotation is especially relevant: Jefferson wisely warned that allowing the central government to be the sole judge of the extent of its own powers would result in “nothing short of despotism.” He held further that “the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, That a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.” (Emphasis added.)

November 29, 2010

JJ Suprise said:

Well there you have it folks, right from the horses mouth above, Williepayne says we should "stop complaining" because he is the authority on the Obamacare law and health insurance and "we won't lose anything" so, stop complaining, Nancy and The One know what is best for you and Williepayne has validated it. Oh, by the way, Williepayne, if you actually believe what you said above? I have a wonderful piece of ocean front property, with a beautiful golden gate at the head of the driveway and a magnificent 360 degree ocean view, in Nebraska that I will give you a great deal on. Really, Nancy was going to buy it but she couldn't afford it, I wasn't willing to give HER the deal that I will give YOU!!! Got Article 1, Section 8 ? HooDeeHoo! JJ Suprise Sandy, Utah

November 29, 2010

Bogus, Lowly rated comment [Show]

JJ Suprise said:

To Mr. Walker Sir, You say that Madison's letter was taken out of context and that he wasn't talking about Article 5? How in the hell can you say that? I just went back and re-read that portion of this article and it seems quite clear that he is talking EXACTLY about Article 5, because he says "general convention" and Article 5 is where that provision is found. I don't have time to go read all of your "facts" that expose all of the "lies" of the JBS so how about you do us all a favor and list out a few of those lies to save us all a little time. Or perhaps just a link to your most hard hitting, truth telling exposure of the lies told by the JBS. If you think that an Article 5 Convention would be a good thing in today's political climate, then I have some ocean front property in North Dakota that you might be interested in. Got Article 1, Section 8 ? HooDeeHoo! JJ Suprise Sandy, Utah

December 01, 2010

JJ Suprise said:

Another interesting thing, is that the RCPUSA(Revolutionary COMMUNIST PARTY U.S.A. is in favor of an Article 5 Convention right along with YOU Mr. Walker and your buddies at "Friends of Article 5". You may be friends of Article 5, but you are surely NOT a friend of The United States of America. Let me ask you a question Mr. Walker. If Congress does not follow the Constitution we currently have, what makes you think they would follow a revised edition? I would say that if we had a Convention, we would end up with a Constitution similar to the U.N. Charter, or the version that the RCPUSA has created, which of course, is practically a spitten image of the Soviet Constitution and the U.N. Charter. Unbelievable the great job that the Conspiracy has done in getting people to fall for this horrendous trap called "friends of Article 5". Got Article 1, Section 8 ? HooDeeHoo! JJ Suprise PS. All that is necessary to bring our Government back to its Constitutional moorings is for Congress to follow the "herein granted" legislative powers outlined in Article 1, Section 8. The Constitution is NOT BROKE, it is Americans like Mr. Walker and "friends of Article 5" who are broke and need to be fixed.

December 01, 2010

ARTICLE V CONVENTION FACTS, Lowly rated comment [Show]

JJ Suprise said:

Guess What Soverign, That is what the States who sent delegates to the original convention thought in regards to their mandate to the delegates to "revise" the Articles of Confederation!! They did not REVISE them, they SCRAPPED THEM COMPLETELY against the commands of the States who sent them there to do the revisions. The truth is that there is NO WAY to stop a runaway convention. God help us if one is ever called in today's political climate. And once again I must ask this question, what in the world makes any of you "friends of Article 5" think that our current batch of vipers in Washington D.C. would follow a revised edition or an amended version of the Constitution when they don't follow the current version??????? The ONLY way it will be followed is if it has all of the big government, police state, warfare state, welfare state, redistribution state nonsense written right into the document. Then they will follow it. This Article 5 nonsense is exactly that and also a very dangerous trap!!! Got Article 5 ? Just say NO!!!! Got Article 1, Section 8 ? HooDeeHoo!

December 01, 2010

One Sovereign Citizen said:

Run-Away Congress The only thing run-away these days is Congress itself. When was the last time they did you any favors? Beware the Liars - JBS

December 01, 2010

JJ Suprise said:

I don't expect any favors from Congress, I want them to get the hell back into their Constitutional fireplace and leave me the hell alone!!! You didn't answer my question? And if there are any liars around here they are YOU!!! Got Article 1, Section 8 ? HooDeeHoo!

December 01, 2010

One Sovereign Citizen said:

Congressional Favors Congress is your employee and my employee and they should be doing us FAVORS every day of the year; instead they curry favor with multinational corporations and bring We The People DEBT.

December 01, 2010

JJ Suprise said:

Wrong again, They might be our employees but their job is NOT of give us or anyone else FAVORS! Their job is to FOLLOW THE "HEREIN GRANTED" POWERS OUTLINED IN ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8!!! If they would just do that, ALL of our problems would be solved. Period. No need for conventions or amendments. Just follow the document as it is written. Got Article 1, Section 8 ? HooDeeHoo!

December 01, 2010

JJ Suprise said:

Oh and once again, What in the hell makes you think they would follow the revised edition? Got Article 1, Section 8 ? HooDeeHoo!

December 01, 2010

Your Opinion Flows..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

JJ Suprise said:

Constitutional Scholars? I guess Madison was not a Constitutional Scholar? Oh you must mean the Constitutional Scholars like the one I met in Colorado who insisted that the 10th Amendment was a limitation on the States NOT the Federal Government? Or perhaps one of the Constitutional Scholars who thinks that the Commerce Clause and Welfare Clause, really mean the Everything Under the Sun Clauses? And you are correct about Congress not being willing to "curb their bad habits" as long as we have citizens like you out there looking for a way to "pass the buck" so you don't have to take responsibility for their bad habits it will continue to be that way and a revised Constitution will NOT CHANGE THAT. And I bet you have brown eyes don't you? You are full enough that you should have brown eyes if you don't. The ONLY reason our Constitution was not destroyed by the likes of you back in the 70's is because of the educational efforts of the JBS. How about you list a few of these LIES by the JBS there pal. The historical precedence is there on this issue and the JBS is simply stating the FACTS, you only call them LIES because you are incapable of dealing with the truth and are looking for an easy way out of this mess when the fact is that THERE IS NO EASY WAY!!! For a little clarification on that go here: http://usedbrainacademy.com/No Easy Way 1.mp3 and here http://usedbrainacademy.com/No Easy Way 2.mp3 And finally, go back to third grade and learn how to write a proper sentence. Got Article 1, Section 8 ? HooDeeHoo!

December 02, 2010

One Sovereign Citizen said:

YOU STAND CORRECTED... MADISON WROTE IT SO HE COULDN'T BE A SCHOLAR OF HIS OWN CREATION. THEY'RE CONFUSED. HOW ABOUT: "STRICT TERM LIMITS" - "BALANCED BUDGET" - "STANDARD VOTING UNIT WITH TRANSPARENT CODE" - "ONE SUBJECT LEGISLATION" - "READ THE BILL" FOR BEGINNERS. CONGRESS WILL NEVER PASS ANY OF THESE WITHOUT AN ARTICLE V AMENDMENTS CONVENTION. AN AMENDMENT THAT BOOTS ANY MEMBER OF GOVERNMENT OUT OF SERVICE ON A FAST-TRACK BASIS WOULD RID THE GOVERNMENT OF POLITICIANS WHO THINK THEY'RE THE OWNERS OF THIS COUNTRY. WE THE PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN, NOT CONGRESS. YOUR MAMA DIDN'T WASH YOUR DIRTY MOUTH OUT THOROUGHLY ENOUGH. TRY TO AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS AND STICK TO THE SUBJECT BEING DISCUSSED, IF YOU CAN. HOW ABOUT JBS CLAIM THAT THEY SUPPORT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION E-X-C-E-P-T ARTICLE V? 404 ERROR FILE NOT FOUND -- THE PAGE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR MIGHT HAVE BEEN REMOVED, HAD IT'S NAME CHANGED, OR IS TEMPORARILY UNAVAILABLE. 404 ERROR FILE NOT FOUND -- THE PAGE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR MIGHT HAVE BEEN REMOVED, HAD IT'S NAME CHANGED, OR IS TEMPORARILY UNAVAILABLE. THAT'S GOOD ADVICE - PLEASE HEED IT.

December 02, 2010

JJ Suprise said:

I have no tolerance, for people like you and have no desire to be nice. I am sick of people like you trying to ram dangerous crap down our throats that you think will be a solution to our problems, history shows that your solutions are NOT. Hell the COMMUNIST PARTY USA is in favor of a Article 5 Convention and they have even drawn up a totally new Constitution to be introduced at a Convention if God forbid we ever have one. Peas in a pod? If the Communists are supporting it, it must be a good thing for your ilk and it says a hell of a lot about the whole dangerous scheme and it says a hell of a lot about the "friends of Article 5". You go on ahead trying to get a Constitutional Convention going and I will keep doing everything in my power to stop it. Got Article 1, Section 8 ? HooDeeHoo!

December 02, 2010

JJ Suprise said:

One more thing, "MADISON WROTE IT SO HE COULDN'T BE A SCHOLAR OF HIS OWN CREATION." What an asinine statement! He wrote it, he IS the scholar of it. Got Article 1, Section 8 ? HooDeeHoo!

December 02, 2010

One Sovereign Citizen said:

PROVE IT... First your links don't work, then you claim that the Communist Party supports an Article V Convention -- prove it with links that actually work in a functional manner. It appears that it's JBS against (Google Search) About 2,590,000 results (0.19 seconds) -- Wimpy Buy more Lava soap -- the first case didn't clean up your dirty mouth.

December 02, 2010

Pat Henry said:

Bogus? The bogus argument is the illogical suggestion that state nullification would be equivalent to or lead to civil war. Pat Buchanan noted, several election cycles ago, that we are already in a "culture war." Nullification is legal, and sensible at this point in our history. We are beyond one-size-fits-all nationalism. State by state is a more "local" solution to hammering out our differences, without having "federal" top-down "laws" provoke out and out rebellion. Nullification is a civil solution.

December 08, 2010

BGen Peter F. Steele USMC Ret said:

... Dad was a patriot who was not a socialist or communist but went broke because the Democrats wanted him broke and dead. LBJ broke my father's financial back in 1963 and forced him to buy Hitlerwagens which is what I call the old VW Beetle. Therefore Dad was too great a man to be given an obituary in the New York Times which is a liberal CFR newspaper which did a lot of damage to our country. FDR was no good because he hated our Constitution.

December 09, 2010

Terry McCall said:

Help in MN Larry, Great article. We are meeting with the leadership of the newly elected MN Legislature soon. It's the first time in 38 years that the GOP has taken the majority in both House and Senate. In a pre-meeting with a strong Liberty minded Rep, he mentioned that the leadership was leaning towards a 'Repeal Amendment' like Virgina's. This smacks of a Con-Con to us. We want them to use Nullification. I plan to get your article to as many of the leaders on our team as possible. Can I copy and forward it? Any thoughts; suggestions? Terry McCall MN

December 15, 2010

Larry Greenley said:

... Terry, Thanks for the message. I like the way you think. My article is available as a free PDF download at: http://www.jbs.org/action/downloads/freedom-campaign-downloads/140-states-should-enforce-not-revise-the-constitution/download A reprint of my article is available at: http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/tna/reprints/states-should-enforce-not-revise-the-constitution-reprint.html You're right. the Repeal Amendment is being used as an enticement for states to issue a Con-Con call.

December 15, 2010