The Constitution of the United States* * * * * * * * * * Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
_____________________________________________________________________
****************************************************************************************************
|
Joanna Martin "Publius Huldah" Delivers Monumental Article V U.S. Constitution Speech
|
|
The "Convention of States" ConCon is one of the biggest political scams of our time, fueled by dark money laundered through (c)(3) organizations. As they ramp up their push for ConCon legislation in 2018, they will seek to avoid hearings that could expose the dark money behind their scheme.
Each year Mark Meckler files his IRS Form 990 at virtually the latest time possible, at or near the extended deadline of November 15 for the prior year. This concealed for nearly an additional year how his (c)(3) organization paid $108,200 to Michael Farris in 2015 for "PR SERVICES." "PR SERVICES"??? The lead advocate for Convention of States legislation, Michael Farris, was supposedly in the business of merely providing PR services to an obscure (c)(3) organization??? To the tune of $108,200??? That is an absurd characterization of Farris's work. Meckler himself raked in $220,200 (and more from a related organization) from that same obscure (c)(3) in 2015. Yet he has been spending his time going around the country demanding that state legislatures enact Convention of States, which is not a legitimate priority for a (c)(3) organization. Tom Coburn's massive compensation is even more cleverly concealed. He failed to fulfill his obligation to voters to complete his Senate term, and instead quit early to make big bucks from the ConCon scheme. Jim DeMint, who also quit the Senate early, is now being funded through a new (c)(3) front group. The obscure (c)(3) that funded Meckler and Farris in 2015 was the "John Hancock Committee for the States," which claims on its form that it is doing business as the "Citizens for Self Governance." The Koch network deliberately makes it very difficult to trace their dark money. Two of the Kochs' biggest issues are amnesty for certain illegal aliens, to get the cheap labor for their companies, and expanding legalized marijuana, which was a libertarian goal back when David Koch ran as the libertarian candidate for vice president. They are working with billionaires on the Left on both issues, and this is what their secret agenda for a constitutional convention to limit federal power means: less border control and fewer limits on illegal drugs. No thanks. The funding of the Convention of States legislation is deceitful and probably illegal in laundering dark money through (c)(3) organizations to push for state legislation. Let's get Meckler, Coburn, Farris and DeMint answering questions under oath about this at a legislative hearing this year, and watch them skip town instead. Let's demand full committee hearings before any votes are taken in 2018. Andy Schlafly __________________________ The "Compact" Gimmick to circumvent the Powers granted to Congress by Article V
By Publius Huldah January 24, 2018 The supremacy clause at Article VI, clause 2, US Constitution, says:
Two bills, SJR 31 & HJR 49, which purport to provide for the selection and control of "commissioners" to an "interstate convention" for "proposing amendments" to our federal Constitution, have recently been filed in the Virginia General Assembly. The bills assert that such an "interstate convention" is authorized by Article I, §10, clause 3; the 10th Amendment; and Article V of our Constitution. As shown below, the bills are unconstitutional because they seek to circumvent Article V, and are not encompassed within Article I, §10, clause 3, or the 10th Amendment. Under the supremacy clause, they would be struck down. I. What Article V says about amending our Constitution Article V says:
We've never had a convention under Article V – they are dangerous! If Congress calls an Article V convention, our existing Constitution could be replaced with a new Constitution which sets up a completely new structure of government. 1Nevertheless, the People granted to Congress at Article V the power to "call" a convention; and to the Delegates to the convention, the power to "propose amendments." 2 Yet the Convention of States Project (COS), in brazen disregard of the plain meaning of Article V, has long insisted that the States "call" the convention; the States propose the amendments for the convention to rubberstamp; and the Stateswill have total control over the Delegates to the convention. SJR 31 & HJR 49 are an implicit admission that we who oppose an Article V convention have proved our point: Congress really does "call" the Convention; and pursuant to its grant of power to "call" the convention, Congress really is granted by Article I, §8, last clause, the power to make all laws "necessary and proper" to carry out the powers granted to Congress by Article V; and the States actually have no power over an Article V convention – except to ask Congress to "call" one. 3 The Congressional Research Service Report dated April 11, 2014 likewise reflects Congress' clear awareness that it alone has the power to organize and set up an Article V convention. The Report says:
II. The new Gimmick to circumvent Congress' powers under Article V SJR 31 & HJR 49 make the bizarre claim that Article I, §10, clause 3, which says:
First of all, our federal Constitution doesn't address "interstate conventions"! 5State and local governments and private organizations may hold nationwide conventions (gatherings) on an endless list of matters: trade shows, book fairs, sports events, high school marching band contests, agricultural fairs, meetings of County Sheriffs, whatever they like! And they don't need permission from Congress. Secondly, a "Compact with another State" within the meaning of Article I, §10, clause 3, is separate, distinct, and totally unrelated to the Article V convention called by Congress for the purpose of addressing our federal Constitution. "Compact," as used in Article I, §10, clause 3, means binding agreements or contracts between States which deal with state matters. Traditionally, "compacts" have been used to resolve such matters as boundary disputes between States; and may be used to address various other issues between States. 6 Article V governs amendments to our Constitution – not Article I, §10, clause 3!Virginia may not lawfully set up any gimmick to circumvent the powers granted by Article V to Congress. And Congress may not lawfully approve a "compact" which violates our Constitution! Thirdly, SJR 31 & HJR 49 claim the 10th Amendment gives States the power to hold an "interstate convention" to propose amendments to the Constitution. Rubbish! The 10th Amendment addresses powers "reserved to the States...or to the people." It is inapplicable here because no powers respecting an Article V convention were reserved to the States: The People granted to Congress the power to "call" an Article V convention; and to the Delegates, the power to "propose amendments." The only power the States have is to ask Congress to call the convention. Once the requisite number of States has applied to Congress, it's out of the States' hands. Pursuant to Article I, § 8, last clause; 7 Congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out its power to "call" the convention. And then, our Fate is in the hands of the Delegates; and they can do whatever they want – as they did in 1787. III. The new Gimmick attempts to circumvent the Plenipotentiary Powers of the Delegates to an Article V Convention. Article V shows on its face that the convention is the deliberative body. The Delegates hold the Power to "propose amendments"; or, to do what our Framers did at the federal "amendments" convention of 1787, write a new Constitution which creates a new government. So, while the States are free to propose amendments to their Congressional Delegations [and this is what James Madison advised]; 8 the States have no authority to dictate the amendments to be proposed at the convention called by Congress. And as shown in "Why states can't prevent a runaway convention" and "Delegates to an Article V Convention can't be controlled by state laws!" attempts to control Delegates with "unfaithful delegate" laws are laughably ineffective. Apparently, the convention lobby now concedes that "unfaithful delegate" bills won't work, since with SJR 31 & HJR 49, they attempt to circumvent the plenipotentiary powers held by Delegates to an Article V convention, by fabricating a new kind of convention (meeting) out of Article I, § 10, clause 3! IV. The solution is to enforce the Constitution we already have Americans don't know what our Constitution says and don't care what it says. They want what they want; and elect politicians like themselves. The politicians made a mess. To fix the mess, Americans must read our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and enforce them with their votes and by repudiating unconstitutional federal programs. State and local governments must enforce our Constitution by renouncing federal funds to implement unconstitutional programs and by nullification. See also James Madison's specific suggestions on how States & Citizens can resist federal usurpations. End notes: 1 This is why Brilliant Men (Madison, Hamilton, four US Supreme Court Justices, and other eminent jurists and scholars) have warned against another convention. And this flyer sets forth the Facts of the federal "amendments convention" of 1787 at which our existing Constitution was drafted to replace our first Constitution (the Articles of Confederation). 2 The issue in U.S. v. Sprague (1931) was whether the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) should have been ratified by conventions in each State instead of by State Legislatures. The Supreme Court held that Article V "is a grant of authority by the people to Congress" and that the people "deliberately made the grant of power to Congress in respect to the choice of the mode of ratification of amendments." Accordingly, Congress had authority to select ratification of the proposed 18th Amendment by State Legislatures instead of by conventions in each State. 3 THIS handy chart lists who has the power to do what respecting an Article V convention. 4 Congress is under no obligation to permit States to participate in the Convention. Congress has the power to appoint its own members, federal judges, or whomever else they want as Delegates! 5 "Convention" has several meanings. It can be a meeting or gathering, such as a national convention of County Court Clerks or architects; or it can refer to a treaty with foreign countries, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions on the laws of war. The author of SJR 31 & HJR 49 may have fallen victim to the Fallacy of Ambiguity since he slips and slides between the two meanings. "Compact" in Art. I, §10, cl. 3, means "agreement" or "contract" – not meetings! 6 E.g., States could properly enter into "Compacts," within the meaning of Art. I, §10, cl. 3, wherein they agree to prohibit waste being discharged into a River shared by them; or respecting the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the River. Even though the federal government has no delegated authority to deal directly with such issues; the requirement of Consent by Congress to such Compacts is proper because States situated above or below the proposed dam could be affected by the dam. Neither the Federalist Papers nor Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 set forth what our Framers meant by "compacts" at Art. I, §10, cl.3. Here are two secondary sources: The Evolving Use and the Changing Role of Interstate Compacts: A practitioner's guide, by Caroline N. Broun & Michael L. Buenger (see pages 1-9 for the historical basis of "interstate compacts"). See also Justice Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" (1833), Book 3, Ch. 35, §§ 1395-1403. 7 Former law professor and pro-convention operative Rob Natelson's statements to the contrary are untrue. See "Rob Natelson perverts the Necessary and Proper Clause and thinks in circles". 8 E.g., Madison's letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville (pages 297-301) at the end of Madison's point 2 [and then read Madison's point 3!] © Publius Huldah __________________________ Why States Can’t Prevent a Runaway Convention
By Publius Huldah September 18, 2017 The danger of an Article V convention (which made James Madison “tremble”, caused Alexander Hamilton “dread”, and Chief Justice John Jay to say that another convention would impose an “extravagant risque”) is this: the delegates to the convention can run away: instead of proposing amendments to our existing Constitution, they can write a completely new Constitution with a new – and easier – mode of ratification. 1 The convention lobby implicitly acknowledges this danger when they say State Legislatures should pass “unfaithful delegate” laws to control delegates. 2 Accordingly, Wyoming passed a delegate law earlier this year which purports to empower the WY Legislature to “immediately recall” any delegate who makes an “unauthorized vote” at the convention, and to charge with a felony any delegate who fails to follow the WY Legislature’s instructions on what he may do at the convention. The Texas delegate lawpurports to make “invalid” any “unauthorized vote” at the convention, and to empower the TX Legislature to recall any delegate who violates his instructions. But Tennessee takes the cake with its delegate law: Not only does the TN law purport to “void” votes cast at the convention by TN delegates which are outside the instructions or limits placed on the delegates by the TN Legislature – and then to prosecute such delegates for a felony; the TN law also asserts that if all TN delegates vote or “attempt to vote” outside the scope of the instructions or limits, TN’s previously filed applications for an Article V convention are to be treated as “having no effect at all”. Other States have passed similar laws. Such laws are contrary to our Founding Principles and are based on false assumptions. Accordingly, they are unenforceable and ineffective. 1. Self-evident Rights and the Declaration of Independence The Declaration of Independence is the Fundamental Act of our Founding.3 It declares that all men are created equal; our rights are bestowed by God; our rights are unalienable; and the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us. The Declaration is not “law” – it is higher than law, for it sets forth The Divine Standard which a Constitution – and the laws made pursuant to the Constitution –must meet. It also declares that a People have the self-evident right to throw off their government and set up a new one. With that Principle firmly in mind, let’s look at our first amendments convention; and then, at State unfaithful delegate laws. 2. The federal convention of 1787 After our Revolution, we operated under our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation. But there were defects in the Articles, so on Feb. 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention to be held in Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. The States also drafted instructions which purported to restrict delegates to proposing amendments. But the delegates ignored their instructions and wrote a new Constitution [the one we now have]. In Federalist No. 40 (15th para), Madison invoked the Declaration of Independence and claimed, as justification for what they did, “…the transcendent and precious right of the people to ‘abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness,’…” Yet State unfaithful delegate laws claim a power to divest The Representatives of the People – and to criminally prosecute them for exercising – what the Fundamental Act of our Founding declares is a “self-evident” right”! 3. And what if the delegates make their proceedings secret? The State Legislators who vote for unfaithful delegate laws assume they will be able to know what is going on every minute of every day of the convention. But Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) shows that on May 29, 1787, the delegates voted to make their proceedings secret. If delegates to a convention today vote to make the proceedings secret, the States won’t know what is going on – and can’t stop it. And if delegates vote by secret ballot, the States would NEVER know who did what. You might think that with cell phones & cameras, it’s impossible to have a secret meeting. But the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which “induces” State Legislators to push the COS application for an Article V convention, is experienced in conducting secret meetings with State Legislators. WATCH this 6.5 minute video of a Georgia TV crew which attempted to get into a meeting held at a Georgia hotel of ALEC and Georgia Legislators. ALEC, which supports the COS application for an Article V convention, is funded by the Koch Brothers and other mega-corporations. The Koch Brothers spend vast sums on State politicians (e.g., Texas), to get their support for the COS application. Do the Kochs want an Article V convention so they can get a new Constitution which transforms us from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union? And if there is a convention, will armed guards keep the press out? If delegates have been bought by the Kochs, will they tweet & text to the world what they are up to behind closed doors? 4. State Legislatures are “creatures” of their State Constitutions, and have no “competent authority” to control The Representatives of The People at an Article V convention Americans have forgotten a Principle which is the basis of free government: That political power originates with The People. 4 The People create governments by means of constitutions. Since a government is the “creature” of its constitution, it can’t be superior to its Creator, The People. This is why at the federal convention of 1787, where our present federal Constitution was drafted, our Framers understood that only The People were competent to ratify the new Constitution. George Mason said on July 23, 1787, “…The [State] Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and cannot be greater than their creators…” Keeping that Principle firmly in mind, let’s look at Article V, US Constitution. It provides that when two thirds of the State Legislatures (“mere creatures”) apply for it, Congress is to call a convention. At that point, it is out of the State Legislatures’ hands – the bell has tolled, and State Legislatures can’t un-ring it. Congress “calls” the convention (sets it up); but when it assembles, the delegates, as Sovereign Representatives of the People, are not answerable to State Legislatures (which are “mere creatures” of the State Constitution) or to Congress (which is a “mere creature” of the federal Constitution). The delegates actually have the power to eliminate the federal and state governments – and that is precisely what the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America does. Delegates to a federal convention called by the federal Congress, to perform the federalfunction of altering or replacing our federal Constitution, are performing a federal function, not a State function. The delegates don’t represent any government, federal or state. 5They are supposed to represent The People; but in our corrupt time, they are more likely to represent the Koch Brothers (because they have the cash). Dust off your copy of the federal Constitution we already have, read it and defend it. It filled all Europe with “wonder and veneration”. If you don’t do this, we will lose it. Endnotes: 1 The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America creates a totalitarian dictatorship. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. It is ratified by a national referendum [national popular vote] (Art. XII, §1). Other proposed Constitutions are also waiting in the wings for a convention. 2 The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) claims their model delegate bill “will eliminate the possibility of a ‘runaway convention’ the reason most often cited by scholars for their opposition to an Article V Convention.” 3 Dr. Alan Keyes spoke of this on the radio some years ago; and I knew he had just handed me the Key to understanding our Constitution. 4 See Federalist No. 22, last para (Hamilton). 5 The term, “convention of states”, is a misnomer which gives the false impression that States control the convention. In Rob Natelson’s speech on Sep. 16, 2010 [now removed from free access] he said he will no longer call it a “constitutional convention”, but will henceforth say, “convention of states” (pg.1-2). This Chart illustrates who has the power to do what at an Article V convention. ___________________________ Term Limits/Lame Duck Session at 55.56
Exposing the real agenda behind the push for an Article V convention
Published on Apr 20, 2017 This presentation was given on April 17, 2017 at the beautiful old Supreme Court Chamber at the Tennessee Capitol Building in Nashville. Be a Berean! See for yourself whether what I said is true. Go to this link and see the Exhibits. Be sure to click on the links about the proposed new Constitutions. click here... Oh, you convention supporters! Delegates CAN'T be controlled, and the politicians know it - they are not telling you the Truth! The Publius Huldah
BREAKING! Legislator Admits Con Con Lie! February 18, 2017
Compact for America's scheme for pre-ratification of a massive new taxes amendment By Publius Huldah Do you remember the public discussions which went on for yearsabout the proposed equal rights amendment to our federal Constitution? That's how it's supposed to be before an amendment is ratified: The People get an opportunity to hear the arguments, discuss it among themselves and their state legislators, and reject amendments which are bad. What if someone found a way to circumvent this pesky public discussion, and get an amendment ratified before The People found about it? And even before the state legislators who ratified it found out what they had done? And what if this amendment delegated massive new taxing powers to Congress? Such a scheme has been developed by Compact for America (CFA). They present their already prepared compact legislation to state legislators as a "balanced budget amendment"; and urge them to get it passed by their state legislature. The provisions which authorize Congress to impose the new taxes, and which provide for pre-ratification of the new taxes amendment, are buried in some 15 pages of single-spaced excruciatingly convoluted and boring writing. Rare is the legislator who has the time to wade through the verbiage and figure out what it says. 1 Once three fourths of the States have passed CFA's compact legislation, the new taxes amendment is thereby ratified. So that's how an amendment to our Constitution which delegates massive new taxing powers to Congress can be ratified before The People know what has been done to them; and before the state legislators who did it find out what they have done to the American People. The scheme has already been passed by state legislators in Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, and North Dakota; has been filed in Missouri as SB 13; and is now pending in Arizona (HB 2226), where it passed the House on February 9, 2017, 2and is now before the Senate. Let's look at the particulars of the compact legislation. I HB 2226 does nothing to control federal spending or "balance the budget" Section 1 of the Compact [page 2, line 16 of the pdf edition] allows Congress to spend as much as they take from us in taxes or add to the national debt! But that's what Congress has been doing! Sections 2 & 3 [page 2, lines 20-37] permit Congress to raise the debt whenever 26 States agree. Section 4 [page 2, lines 38 et seq.] is a joke: Who believes Congress will impeach a President for refusing to "impound" an appropriation made by Congress? II CFA's BBA is an actually a grant of MASSIVE new taxing powers to Congress. The true purpose of the compact legislation is hidden behind promises such as, "cutting federal spending," "balancing the budget," and "scaring Congress." The true purpose of the Compact is to delegate to Congress MASSIVE NEW TAXING POWERS. Specifically, it authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT). This is where the grant to Congress of the new taxing powers is set forth:
Section 5 also permits Congress, by a simple majority of each House, to impose a "new end user sales tax" which would replace the federal income tax. But nothing requires Congress to impose a "new end user sales tax" to replace the income tax. It will be up to Congress to decide whether to impose a new national sales tax and/or VAT tax on top of the existing income tax (if they get 2/3 vote of each House); or whether to impose a new end user sales tax to replace the income tax (if they get only a simple majority in each House). So! CFA's version of a BBA is not about "balancing the budget," or "scaring Congress," or "reducing federal spending." It's about giving the federal government massive new taxing powers! A value-added tax is a "turbo-charged national sales tax on goods and services that is applied at each stage of production, not merely on retail transactions" and raises a "gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments worldwide." III When State Legislatures pass compact legislation such as HB 2226, they are actually pre-ratifying the new Amendment to the US Constitution which grants these massive new taxing powers to Congress. Please note: If Arizona passes HB 2226, Arizona IS RIGHT THEN AND THERE RATIFYING THE AMENDMENT. I'll show you: HB 2226 says in Article IV, Section 7 (e) of the Compact [page 6, line 43, et seq.]:
When 38 States have passed legislation like HB 2226 – and when Congress approves it, 3 our Constitution is thereby AMENDED and Congress now has constitutional authority to impose a new national sales tax and a national VAT tax – even while keeping and increasing the income tax. The provisions of the compact which deal with a convention – Articles V through VIII – are a smokescreen which obscures from state legislators the fact that when they pass legislation like HB 2226, they are pre-ratifying the amendment to our federal Constitution. The convention is a formality – a free trip at taxpayers' expense. IV What's the Solution? Don't feed the beast by giving it massive new taxing powers. The solution is to downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers. Our Constitution already limits federal spending to the enumerated powers – learn what those powers are, and enforce the Constitution we already have. And use your heads! You who foolishly believe that a BBA [whether CFA's version or another version] will force Congress to reduce spending, know this: a BBA is a mandate for Congress to increase taxes, among other horrors. 4 Endnotes: Legislators don't have time to read the bills they vote on. That's why they have bill summaries. The Compact legislation filed in Arizona has two bill summaries: HEREand HERE. Can you find where Arizona Legislators are informed they are pre-ratifying a new taxes amendment to the US Constitution if they pass the compact legislation? 2 Click on this link: see the sponsors and the votes. Do they know what they have done? 3 Pursuant to Article I, §10, last clause, US Constitution, CFA's Compact is not effective unless Congress approves it. Will Congress approve a Compact Amendment which delegates massive new taxing powers to them? 4 The Arizona House also passed on Feb 9, 2017, HCR 2013 an application for an Article V convention which purports to be limited to proposing a "balanced budget" amendment (BBA). Do the sponsors and those who voted for it not know that a BBA does the opposite of what they have been told - that it removes the enumerated powers limitation on federal spending and creates a completely new constitutionalauthority to spend on whatever the feds want? See THIS short article. People of Arizona! Get with your State Senators and put a stop to these reckless applications for an Article V convention. And to show that there is no limit to the damage a legislative body can do on one day, your Representatives also passed HCR 2010, the COS application for an Article V convention. The real agenda of the movers and shakers is to put our existing Constitution on the executioner's block – and you won't like the new Constitution. © Publius Huldah Coalition letter against Convention of States
Coalition Letter in Support of our U.S. Constitution The undersigned organizations and individuals stand in defense of our U.S. Constitution, and oppose all attempts under its Article V to convene a new constitutional convention ("Con Con"). State legislation is being pushed by undisclosed donors to force Congress to convene a Con Con supposedly "to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government." Such a convention would open the door to eliminate border security. It would inevitably seek to repeal the Second Amendment while inserting a new requirement for taxpayer-funded abortion. Article V expressly allows the adoption of amendments, plural, without limitation, so a Con Con would probably vastly expand federal power in many undesirable ways, such as expanding federal authority over churches and schools. Tremendous irrevocable harm would result from a Con Con because it would allow numerous changes to our Constitution with the national media guiding the way. Justice Antonin Scalia condemned the proposals for an Article V convention as a "horrible idea" months before he unexpectedly passed away. Phyllis Schlafly spoke out strongly against all Article V convention ideas, explaining that they would be "playing Russian Roulette with the Constitution." Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote against the mere suggestion of holding a Con Con. Second Amendment groups like the Gun Owners of America fully oppose it. The Founders themselves were very much against holding another constitutional convention, and many of the greatest American statesmen throughout history spoke out passionately against the idea. In July 2016 in Cleveland, the Republican Party national platform committee rejected, nearly unanimously, an attempt to adopt a resolution calling for an Article V constitutional convention to enact a Balanced Budget Amendment. Now the media want to repeal the Electoral College, which properly requires geographical diversity before a presidential candidate can win. Globalists and the media also want to repeal the Treaty Clause, which protects our Nation against harmful treaties with foreign powers by requiring the difficult-to-attain 2/3rds support in the Senate. The Constitution has never been the problem, and our political leaders should be defending the Constitution rather than falsely pretending that it needs to be changed. Politicians and courts that do not abide by the Constitution today will not abide by a rewritten one tomorrow. Promoters of the misnamed "Convention of States," which is merely a repackaged Article V "Con Con," fail to comply with state requirements for fiscal notes to disclose the economic impact of their legislation. Reducing federal power to secure our borders, as invited by the Convention of States legislation, would impose billions of dollars in new costs on states. States would be compelled to dole out more entitlements and spend far more combating crime as a result of reduced federal power to stop illegal immigration. Conclusion Our U.S. Constitution is the longest, most successful constitution in the history of mankind. It is not for sale, and it is not broken. It should not be "fixed" by secret billionaires having their own hidden agenda of globalism and open borders, views that they conceal with broad platitudes like "limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government." Far too much is at stake to gamble away the future of our Constitution and our Nation on a runaway constitutional convention. Please speak out against any and all proposals to convene an Article V Convention, including the Convention of States resolutions, and please demand that the undisclosed donors pushing this "horrible idea" identify themselves and disclose their real agenda. Thank you. Sincerely, Andrew Schlafly, Esq. [email protected] Phyllis Schlafly Eagles Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13-VA) Virginia legislator Cathy Marshall longtime Virginia activist David R. Usher Center for Marriage Policy Shirley Spellerberg Phyllis Schlafly Eagles of Texas Barbara M. Bowman Alcoa, Tennessee Sevil Kalayci Vienna, Virginia Aileen Milton Founder-The Villages Tea Party & The Villages Conservative Media Justice Antonin Scalia Opposed a Constitutional Convention "I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that?" - Justice Antonin Scalia, April 17, 2014 (Click here to see video of Scalia's statement.) In a recent email from former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to Oklahoma state legislators encouraging them to pass the Convention of States application for a "limited convention," Coburn used a supportive quote attributed to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The quote, as it appeared in the email, reads: "If the only way to clarify the law, if the only way to remove us from utter bondage to the Congress, is to take what I think to be a minimal risk on this limited convention, then let's take it." ~ Justice Antonin Scalia~ Reading this, one might believe that this portrays a recent view of the late justice, especially since Coburn's citation says "Justice." However, this is misleading. Although no date was provided with the quote, the quote comes from remarks delivered by Scalia at a forum hosted by the American Enterprise Institute on May 23, 1979 - seven years before President Ronald Reagan nominated Scalia to the Supreme Court. The AEI forum was entitled, "A Constitutional Convention: How Well Would It Work?" and was moderated by former ABC News chief John Charles Daly. Scalia was not a justice of the Supreme Court when he said those words, but rather a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School. At the time, Scalia also worked at the American Enterprise Institute, which he was addressing when he spoke in favor of the idea of a limited convention. However, contrary to Senator Coburn's attempt to protray Scalia as a supporter of an Article V constitutional convention, the quote he uses from 1979 does not accurately reflect Scalia's recent views on the subject of a modern-day constitutional convention. On April 17, 2014, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared on an episode of the Kalb Report, a one-on-one panel discussion television and radio program jointly produced by the National Press Club Journalism Institute, the George Washington University, and the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. The subject of their program was "A Conversation about the First Amendment." During the program, host Marvin Kalb asked a question from Seth Dawson of the Office of Congressman Denny Heck (D-Wash.) regarding Justice John Paul Stevens's recent suggestion of a constitutional amendment to modify the Second Amendment. The question was, "If you could amend the Constitution in one way, what would it be, and why?" The first to answer was Scalia, who replied (click on above image for video): I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that? Scalia acknowledged the difficulty of amending the Constitution and speaking in the context of amendments he clearly warned against the notion of convening a convention, which is the second method for amending the Constitution under Article V. Following a speech Scalia gave to the Federalist Society in Morristown, New Jersey, on May 8, 2015, during the question-and-answer session, Scalia was asked whether a constitutional convention would be in the nation's interest. "A constitutional convention is a horrible idea," Scalia replied. "This is not a good century to write a constitution." Although the Convention of States (COS) Project would have one believe that a constitutional convention is a "totally different creature" from an Article V convention or "convention of the states," as they call it, this is simply not true. Black's Law Dictionary, the definitive legal lexicon in American law, defines the term constitutional convention, then refers to an Article V convention as an example of one: Constitutional convention. A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution. Art. V of U.S. Const. provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states. [Emphasis added] This definition of a constitutional convention originates from the second edition of A Law Dictionary: Containing Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient, and Modern published in 1910, by Henry Campbell Black (1860-1927), and remains unchanged in contemporary editions of Black's Law Dictionary. Professor Scalia may have entertained the notion of a convention back in 1979, but by 2014 Justice Scalia was firmly set against it and rightly so, noting the uncertainty that could arise from such a modern convention. This is especially true given today's political climate and prevailing lack of education about the Constitution. The solution, as The John Birch Society advocates and Justice Scalia understood throughout his judicial career, is adhering to the Constitution, not changing it by way of amendments at an unpredictable convention. First Action Request: Click here for the phone number of your state legislators. Phone them and ask them to vote against all bills and resolutions making application to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. Tell them that our state legislatures and Congress should enforce the Constitution, not rewrite it. Second Action Request: Click here to send a prewritten, editable message to your state legislators. It is preferable (to get the maximum impact) to edit the message in some way, such as adding opening or closing remarks, or editing the message itself. Then send the email message. Thanks. Your Friends at The John Birch Society ___________________________ January 5, 2015
Rob Natelson perverts the Necessary and Proper Clause and thinks in circles By Publius Huldah In former law professor Rob Natelson's recent paper, "No, the Necessary and Proper Clause Does NOT Empower Congress to Control an Amendments Convention" [read it HERE or HERE], he makes several untrue statements and commits the gross fallacy of making a circular argument which begs the question. Natelson is the intellectual guru of those pushing for an Article V convention. Among the false claims they make is that a convention will be controlled by the States, and Congress has nothing to do with it. 1 That false claim rests on Natelson's (1) fanciful theory of "customs," (2) his tortured interpretation of the necessary and proper clause, (3) his misrepresentations of Supreme Court cases, and (4) his crimes against the Laws of Logic. I'll show you. What Does Article V Say? Article V provides two methods of proposing amendments to our Constitution. Congress proposes amendments and submits them to the States for ratification; or Congress "calls" a convention if 2/3 of the States apply to Congress for a convention. All our existing 27 amendments were proposed using the first method. We have never had a convention under Article V – for good reason. 2 What does the Necessary and Proper Clause Say? Article I, §8, last clause says:
How Does the Necessary and Proper Clause Apply to Article V? Article V delegates to Congress the power to "call" the convention. The necessary and proper clause delegates to Congress the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out its power to "call" the convention. The April 11, 2014 Report of the Congressional Research Service 5 shows that Congress claims exclusive authority over both methods of amending the Constitution, and that Congress claims the power to organize & set up a convention. But Natelson – mind, he is their "cutting edge intellectual" – insists that the necessary and proper clause does NOT delegate to Congress power to organize & set up an Article V convention. Well, well! Let's look at Natelson's four arguments: (1) Natelson's Fanciful Theory of "Customs" A convention called under Article V of our Constitution is governed by provisions in our Constitution: Article V and Article I, §8, last clause – the "necessary and proper" clause. But Natelson has long insisted that customs followed at conventions during our "Founding Era" determine how a convention called under Article V will be organized & set up. He says in his paper:
(2) Natelson's Tortured Interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause Natelson says the necessary and proper clause:
So! While Hamilton and Madison said in The Federalist Papers 4 that the necessary and proper clause was a "grant of power to Congress" to make the laws to execute the powers delegated; and Madison and Thomas Jefferson said The Federalist Papers were:
(3) Natelson's Misrepresentations of Supreme Court Cases 7 Natelson next asserts "the Necessary and Proper Clause does not extend to the amendment process" because when Congress acts on Article V, it is not a Department or Branch of the federal government. Instead, it is an "ad hoc assembly." Congress is sometimes not a branch of the federal government? It is sometimes an ad hoc assembly? The Constitution doesn't say that! The Federalist Papers don't say that! Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention doesn't say that! But Natelson says he "knows" this from the "Founding Era record," from subsequent history, and from decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, such as U.S. v. Sprague(1931). Of course, Natelson doesn't show where the "Founding Era record" says this; he doesn't show why assemblies which met during our "Founding Era" are relevant to a convention called under Article V; he doesn't show where "subsequent history" says this; and he doesn't tell the truth about the holding in U.S. v. Sprague. The issue in U.S. v. Sprague was whether the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) should have been ratified by conventions in each State instead of by State Legislatures. The Supreme Court held that Article V "is a grant of authority by the people to Congress" and that the people "deliberately made the grant of power to Congress in respect to the choice of the mode of ratification of amendments."Accordingly, Congress had authority to select ratification of the proposed Amendment by State Legislatures instead of by conventions in each State. U.S. v. Sprague has nothing to do with what Natelson claims it says! Yet, Natelson goes on to say he "knows" that Congress can't pass laws structuring the Convention because a "long list of 20th century cases" holds that "ordinary legislation does not bind the amendment process. See, for example, Leser v. Garnett (1922)." Congress can't pass laws organizing a convention under Article V? The Constitution doesn't say that! The Federalist Papers don't say that! Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention doesn't say that! And the Supreme Court case Natelson cited doesn't say it either! Of course, Natelson doesn't provide this "long list of 20th century cases"; and the one case he did cite, Leser v. Garnett, has nothing to do with Congress' law making powers. The issue in Leser v. Garnett was whether States – whose State Constitutions restricted voting to men – could ratify an Amendment to the federal Constitution which allowed women to vote. The Supreme Court held that when State Legislatures ratify proposed amendments to the federal Constitution, they are performing a federal function derived from the federal Constitution and it transcends any limitations imposed by State Constitutions. So! Provisions in State Constitutions restricting voting to men did not prevent State Legislatures from ratifying an amendment to the federal Constitution which would have supremacy over a contrary provision in the State Constitution. (4) Natelson's Fallacious Circular Argument Begs The Question (Petitio Principii) 8 Now let's look at Natelson's crimes against the Laws of Logic. The fallacy of begging the question is committed when one assumes as true the conclusion he seeks to prove. An argument is circular when one seeks to prove the premise from the conclusion. Natelson was supposed to prove that the necessary and proper clause does not give Congress power to make laws to organize & set up a convention under Article V. But – as you have seen – he didn't prove it. So he assumed it to be true. He asserts as true:
Conclusion Yet, Natelson's work is the "authority" on which those who seek to force an Article V convention on us rely – a slender reed, to be sure. Take heed, America! Endnotes: 1 Above all else, REMEMBER THIS: Whether Congress or the States organize & set up a convention is NOT the critical issue. In either case, the delegates – whoever selects them – are vested with that inherent sovereign right to throw off our Constitution and propose a new one (Declaration of Independence, 2nd para). The new one will have its own new mode of ratification. 2 Brilliant men have warned against an Article V convention. It is immoral to dismiss their warnings:
4 Federalist No. 33 is devoted to the necessary and proper clause. Hamilton writes:
5 HERE is the CRS Report. The Report exposes as false the assurances that the States would be in control of a convention. The Report says:
Furthermore, as all lawyers should know, since the power to call the Convention is delegated to Congress, the supreme Court is unlikely to interfere with Congress' decisions in this regard because it is a "political question" for Congress alone to decide. See short discussion of "political questions" HERE. 6 See the Minutes of March 4, 1825 of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia (Thomas Jefferson & James Madison were present) where they acknowledged the authoritative status of The Federalist Papers and made them one of the texts books for the Law School. 7 See Robert Brown's astute discussion of this issue in Mr. Brown's Face Book Note HERE. 8 Give your Family and Country a wonderful gift: Everybody LEARN LOGIC – it's fun to play the "spot the fallacy" game! These delightful books are marked 12 years and up, but much younger children can learn the fallacies. My Papa started teaching me before first grade. Look at The Fallacy Detective and The Thinking Toolbox. PH © Publius Huldah How our Federal Constitution “Secures” our God Given Rights
By Publius Huldah Our Declaration of Independence says the Creator God endowed us with Rights, and that the purpose of government is to “secure” the Rights God gave us. What does this mean? How does a government go about “securing” God given rights? I will show you. The miracle of our federal Constitution was that it created a federal government which, by means of exercising the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution, was enabled to “secure” our God given Rights in specific ways. It isn’t the federal government’s job to secure our God given Rights in all ways, just in the ways appropriate for the national government of a Federation. Our Rights are to be secured in other ways by State governments. 1 The federal government is supposed to secure our right to life by:
By exercising these enumerated powers, the federal government protects us from those who seek to take our Rights from us. The federal government is never supposed to “secure” our Right to Life by giving us what we need to live. That could not be for it would require the federal government to takeother peoples’ God given Property Rights away from them. When a government secures God given Rights by protecting us from those who seek to take our rights away, we are never put in conflict with each other, because no one has his hand in anyone else’s pocket. THIS is why our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were a Miracle. But we abandoned this Miracle long ago when we let the federal government pervert our Constitution and abuse its power in order to benefit some at the expense of others. This is what turned us against each other. So, what should we do? Reclaim and Restore the Constitution our Framers gave us! This is how we do it: Learn the above; spread the word; and stop electing candidates who don’t know the lists of enumerated powers and who don’t sign an oath that they will obey. Hold candidate exams and test the candidates! Grill them! Make them sweat. Look for candidates who are willing to employ beneficial methods of financing 3 such grossly unconstitutional (and fiscally & morally destructive) programs as social security and Medicare as they are gradually phased out of existence. Learn HERE about the remedy our Framers actually advised when the federal government usurps powers: Don’t comply – resist – nullify! Beware of those Pushing for a Convention. I have already shown – most recently HERE – that what these demagogues are saying is not true; and that the real purpose of a convention is the imposition of a new constitution. Endnotes: 1 State governments are to secure our God given Rights in other ways: E.g., they secure our right to life by prosecuting murderers, drunk drivers, and outlawing abortion & euthanasia; they secure our rights to our own persons by prosecuting rapists & kidnappers; and they secure our property rights by prosecuting robbers, thieves & defrauders. They provide courts for peaceful resolution of private civil disputes. 2 Our Declaration of Independence states, as one of our Founding Principles, that “all men are created equal”. We were faithful to this Principle when we outlawed titles of nobility (Article I, §§ 9 & 10). But we violated this Principle when we permitted hereditary black slavery to continue. 3 E.g., vast holdings of unconstitutionally held federal lands could be sold to fund social security & Medicare as they are phased out of existence. PH Constitutional Convention: 10-Point Refutation
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. In order to buttress its call for an Article V convention, the Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute has published a document entitled “10 Facts to Rebut the Mythology of a Runaway Convention.” This list is designed to set forth a roster of reasons that an Article V convention is not only safe, but necessary. In order to effectively rebut the Goldwater Institute’s rebuttal, the definition of a few key terms and concepts must be set forth. Principally, the reader must be familiar with Article V of the Constitution, the type of convention it anticipates, the history of such a provision, and the likely metes and bounds that would establish the legal territory of any convention authorized under the relevant constitutional grant of power. First, let us look at the black letter of Article V. Article V of the Constitution reads in relevant part: 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. Plainly stated, Article V requires the Congress of the United States to call “a Convention for proposing Amendments” upon receipt of applications for such by two-thirds of the states. Then, any amendment proposed by such a convention becomes for “all Intents and Purposes … part of this Constitution” if subsequently ratified by three-fourths of the states, either by state legislatures or by state conventions, as determined by Congress. To date, no such convention has been held. Recently, however, a significant bloc of erstwhile conservatives and constitutionalists has united in pleading with the states to apply to Congress to convene just such a convention. What would be the purpose of such a convention, and why are otherwise conservative organizations working so diligently to bring it to pass? The answers to these questions are revealed through the “10 Facts” document and this article’s refutation of those “facts.” What follows is a recitation of the “10 Facts” followed by the appropriate constitutional response. Verifying Facts The first fact, verbatim, says: “Article V does not authorize a constitutional convention; it authorizes a convention for proposing specific amendments.” Right out of the chute, the “10 Facts” author adds a word to the Constitution that isn’t there. Article V does not contain the word “specific” as a modifier of the noun “amendments.” While this might seem like an inconsequential and picayune point, it is anything but, especially in light of the gravity of the matter at issue. The plain language of Article V limits neither the scope of the convention it anticipates nor the number or substantiveness of the amendments that may be proposed therein. In fact, if the purpose of the suggested convention is to propose amendments to the Constitution, doesn’t that make it per se a constitutional convention, regardless of how narrow an agenda those calling for the convention say they will follow? It seems so very dangerous to rely upon semantics as a balance to the risks that would attend such a convention, regardless of the nomenclature preferred by its advocates. Besides, adding and deleting words from the Constitution is a trick typically employed by enemies of our Republic, not by those sailing under the colors of the Constitution. The second of the Goldwater Institutes “10 Facts” states: “When the Founders drafted the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they specifically rejected language for Article V that would have allowed the states to later call for an open convention.” As with the previous claim, this one is a mixture of a thimble of fact in an ocean of fiction. A brief recap of the relevant debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 is called for. As with so many of the conflicts at the Philadelphia Convention, the debates over Article V fractured along the line separating the powers retained by the states and those to be granted to the new national authority. There was general consensus among the delegates that the new charter should include an effective mechanism for enacting amendments. Their common experience under the impotent Articles of Confederation confirmed to the delegates that the process established by the new Constitution should be easier than the method under the Articles whereby one state could veto any proposed amendment, regardless of the number of sister states in favor of its passage. The delegates were not, however, in favor of reducing the process of amending the Constitution to something that would undermine the stability they sought to ensure by the working out of the difficult “bundle of compromises” that would hold the new union together. The compromise that resulted in the version of Article V that was written into the Constitution revealed two salient points: First, Congress was not to have the exclusive power to propose amendments; and second, state legislatures were not to retain the power to propose and ratify amendments, as such a scheme could be manipulated by states to increase the scope of their power. The balance between state and federal power would be divided thus: The state legislatures could call for the convention and ratify any amendments proposed therein, but Congress must convene a convention upon receipt of the appropriate number of state applications. (Congress may also propose its own amendments that, like amendments proposed by a convention, must be ratified by the states.) Put simply, if state legislatures were allowed to write the proposed amendments, as well as set the scope of the agenda for the Article V convention that would consider them, Congress’ power would be effectively reduced and the delicate balance worked out by our Founding Fathers would be upset. Alternatively, if Congress were permitted to define the scope of the Article V convention called for by the states, then Congress would be usurping power not granted to it by the Constitution, also an outcome inconsistent with the principle of federalism that is the fulcrum upon which our Republic is balanced. The third fact claims that as 38 states would have to ratify any proposed amendment coming out of an Article V convention, the potential for a “runaway” convention is reduced by the requirement of such a “broad consensus.” As demonstrated in the historical information presented above, it is given to neither the states nor the national government to assume the role of arbiter of what is or is not a permissible proposal at an Article V convention. This “broad consensus” relied upon by the Goldwater Institute could likely prove broad enough to accommodate all manner of frightening meddling with our beloved Constitution, such as changing the method of ratification. But could a new proposal for ratifying amendments be adopted based on the newly proposed method as opposed to the method now in place? It’s possible. Consider that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 scrapped the then-existing constitutional amendment process requiring ratification by all of the states in favor of a new process requiring ratification by only a three-fourths majority — and the new Constitution was then ratified based on the three-fourths majority. But even assuming that the Article V amendment procedure is strictly followed, Congress could still submit amendments proposed by the convention to special state ratifying conventions as opposed to the state legislatures as a means of circumventing the wills of the state legislatures. Congress sent the 21st Amendment (ending prohibition) to state ratifying conventions, in fact, fearing that it might not be possible to get three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify an amendment ending prohibition. Fourth, the Goldwater Institute assures readers that an Article V convention “couldn’t simply rewrite the entire Constitution.” Why not? Why couldn’t an expansive amendment (or amendments) strike most or all of the language of the Constitution and replace it with new language? But replacing the Constitution with a new constitution would by no means be necessary to radically alter the document. It wouldn’t have to. The Constitution, as originally drafted and ratified by the states, has been amended into a document that would be unrecognizable to the Founders and that is irreconcilable with the principles of federalism and limited government that were the two chief cornerstones upon which our Republic was built (see, for example, the 16th Amendment, which gave Congress the power to collect income taxes, and the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of U.S. Senators, rather than allowing their appointment by state legislatures). The fifth fact is as fictional as the others in its insistence that the “convention can be limited to specific topics.” This is mere wishful thinking. There is no legally binding precedent that would control in such a matter. In fact, as set forth above, the Founders purposefully avoided granting such power to either the states or the federal legislature. As eloquently addressed by Walter E. Dellinger, “To permit the state legislatures to dictate to the convention the exact terms of its proposals is to short-circuit the carefully structured division of authority between state and national interests.” Our Constitution is the palladium of the viability of the coexistence of dual sovereignties. If we accept the logic of the “10 Facts,” then we eviscerate the strength of the Constitution: the balance between state and federal authority. The next fact listed by the Goldwater Institute contends that “one cannot take the Constitution seriously and contend that Article V was not meant to be used.” Serious opponents of an Article V constitutional convention do not argue that Article V was never meant to be used. There are, perhaps, in the universe of possibilities compelling reasons for the calling of an Article V convention. The purpose relied upon by the Goldwater Institute and its fellow Article V advocates is not one of those, however. This coterie of self-styled constitutionalists insists that an Article V convention is needed in order to curb the “endless growth of the federal government” and to “regain control over the federal government.” We, the opponents of a new constitutional convention, counter by asserting that it is irrational to hold a convention to propose amendments whose purpose is to clarify what is already part of the Constitution. Why, for instance, propose a balanced-budget amendment when most congressional spending is in violation of the Constitution? Why would Congress bother to follow new amendments when the American people don’t require them to follow the present ones? Note that most states have strict rules about balanced budgets or have passed balanced-budget amendments, yet almost none have balanced budgets. We don’t need amendments to save our Republic; we need renewed commitment to the Constitution — as written — and to the timeless principles of self-government and republicanism that undergird it. Next, the Goldwater Institute wants to have its cake and eat it, too. In regard to concerns that a constitutional convention would exceed the scope of that set by those who called for the convention, it insists that there is “zero precedent” that any convention of the states has ever “run away” from its assigned agenda. This thesis is supported by the statement that “nearly all of the commissions for the delegates for each state” authorized them to “revise” and “alter” the Articles of Confederation — basically trying to undermine the argument that the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787 is a prime example of a runaway convention. Take this thought out of historical context and apply it to our own situation. Would the amendments proposed by a modern Article V constitutional convention be binding on the states whose delegates were not specifically authorized to vote on any amendments that fell outside the scope of their commissions? “Fact 8” sets forth the rules by which an Article V convention would be governed. The fact is the Constitution is silent on the point and all of these assurances proffered by the Goldwater Institute are unreliable and self-interested attempts to soft-pedal the very real risks posed by the lack of enumerated rules that would govern the proceedings of an Article V constitutional convention and the legal scope thereof. The last two points made by the Goldwater Institute read as restatements of earlier ones. The advocates of an Article V convention argue that the scope of an Article V convention would be “similar to that of state ratification conventions.” That is not accurate. The state conventions that ratified the original constitution were limited to debate and vote on an already complete slate of proposals. Even the most cursory study of the history of those conventions revealed that delegates did not bind themselves by those rules, and numerous amendments were proposed, 10 of which eventually became the Bill of Rights. An Article V convention would potentially be in the hands of designing delegates of all political and social stripes, and it strains credulity to imagine that the product of such a confab would be as sound as our Bill of Rights, but it would still be just as much a part of our Constitution. Why? Because “mere amendments” become the law, and very often with devastating effect upon the remarkable and unmatched system established by our Founders (again, see the 16th and 17th Amendments). A Way Forward There is a simple answer: Look to the plain language of Article V. Not a single assurance provided by the Goldwater Institute in its “10 Facts” has any basis in that provision of our Constitution. As constitutionalists we should never be guilty of skulking about in penumbras to find tenuous justifications for our causes, no matter how noble their underlying intent. Finally, why run the risk posed by an Article V convention? There is a substantial risk that the very foundations of our Republic would be left vulnerable to destructive forces inimical to our Constitution. Ironically, this risk is protected by the black letter of Article V and thus must be avoided at all cost. If the true aim of the proponents of an Article V constitutional convention is to redress the imbalance between the states and the increasingly despotic federal government, should we not encourage the very fine organizations founded and funded by brilliant patriots to employ their time, talents, and treasure in the cause of supporting the election of candidates committed to hewing rigidly to the enumerated and limited powers already clearly written into our Constitution? We mustn’t sit idly by as otherwise right-minded constitutionalists lift the tub of our Republic and throw out the baby of our Constitution with the bathwater of federal usurpation of powers. Frequent elections is the drain by which the filth of congressional and executive tyranny is removed, and it is the clear water of the Constitution with which the tub must be refilled and used to cleanse the body politic. We should not mix this purifying liquid with the potentially muddying and infected draughts of an unnecessary Article V convention. __________________________ NO, NO CON-CON
Exclusive: Henry Lamb paints scary scenario of proposed Constitutional Convention Published: 02/26/2011 at 12:00 AM HENRY LAMB About | Archive Editor’s note: Listen to this column online. The U.S. Constitution provides two ways to offer amendments: by resolution of the Congress; and by a Constitutional Convention requested by two-thirds of the states. In either case, the proposed amendment(s) must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. There is a very good reason why all 27 amendments to the Constitution were offered by congressional resolution: a Constitutional Convention is an invitation to disaster. Proponents of a Constitutional Convention claim that opponents of a Con-Con use “half-truths, myths and outright falsehoods” to instill fear of the process. They do not, however, provide any examples of the alleged “half-truths, myths and outright falsehoods.” Here is the whole truth, which is neither a myth nor a falsehood. Article V of the U.S. Constitution allows states to apply to the Congress for a Constitutional Convention. Should two-thirds of the states issue such an application, Congress is compelled to call a Constitutional Convention. Note, however, that the Constitution provides the states only with the authority to call for a convention for the purpose of “proposing amendments.” There is no authority for the states to specify what those amendments might be, or to set or limit the agenda of a convention. Witness the birth of self-government in this inspiring portrayal of the Constitution’s genesis, “A More Perfect Union” When 34 states have applied for a Constitutional Convention, Congress is compelled to call one. Here’s where the scary begins. Congress sets the time and location for the Con-Con. Congress determines how the delegates are chosen and how many delegates will be chosen. Congress could designate the existing Senate to be the delegates. Congress could designate the Electoral College from the last presidential election to be the delegates. Or, Congress could allow the states to choose their own delegates in whatever manner Congress might contrive. But this is not the scariest part. Should a Constitutional Convention ever be assembled, neither Congress nor any state would have any authority or control over what the convention might do. There is no way for Congress to set or limit the agenda of a Constitutional Convention, regardless of what proponents might say. As evidence, consider the only Constitutional Convention that was ever assembled. It was assembled expressly to amend the existing Articles of Confederation, with explicit instructions from some states for their delegates to walk out should the convention stray beyond this specific purpose. History demonstrates that the convention ignored its instructions and abolished the Articles of Confederations while creating an entirely new Constitution. There is nothing to prohibit another Constitutional Convention from doing precisely the same thing. Proponents of a Con-Con say that the requirement that three-fourths of the states must ratify whatever comes out as a constitutional amendment is a safeguard to prevent radicals on either side from imposing radical provisions. These folks forget that the convention can specify what it takes to ratify whatever they produce. They could produce a new Constitution with an entirely new form of government and specify that ratification would occur upon a simple majority vote in national referendum. They could specify that the new document would be ratified when approved by state legislatures in any combination of states that represent more than 50 percent of the population. Under this scenario, a handful of blue states could transform the government of the United States. Scary? You bet. Scenarios such as this should instill fear and force people to reject the idea of a Constitutional Convention for any reason. Here is a thorough explanation of the dangers. There is great need, however, to amend the Constitution. The imbalance in powers between the states and the federal government grows in the favor of the feds every time Congress meets or the president speaks. The United States of America originally was a unique experiment in shared sovereignty in which the states’ power was centered in the Senate, which had to approve virtually every legislative proposal suggested by the president or that originated in the people’s House of Representatives. The tension between what the states considered to be in their interest and what the people’s representatives and the president considered to be in their interests created a competition that could not move any idea forward until all parties had agreed. This is the genius of the American system that made America the greatest nation on earth. The 17th Amendment removed the states altogether from participation in the federal government. The federal government’s power and budget has expanded ever since. The time has come to restrain the powers of the federal government, and the best way to do it is to return to the design created by our founders. Repeal the 17th Amendment! Read more at __________________________ Friday, 06 December 2013 11:13
Mt. Vernon Assembly Plans to Adopt Rules for Future Con-Con Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. On December 7 ("a date which will live in infamy"?), a “bipartisan meeting of the states” will convene at George Washington’s beloved Mt. Vernon estate (shown). Despite their denials, this group of state legislators seem determined to tinker with the Constitution and remake the document that has kept us free for over two centuries. Of course, they explain their purposes a little differently. First, the organizers of the convention claim the meeting is designed to “to foster communication and interaction between the states.” This increased interaction will, the group insists, improve the ability of the states to “influence Congress and the direction of the country.” Ironically, though, it is the failure of Congress to control spending and the growth of government that prompted the Mt. Vernon proposal in the first place. The organizers of the Mt. Vernon Assembly insist that this is not a call for a constitutional convention, but rather a meeting “to discuss and consider a Convention of the States in 2014 that is solely focused on the task of writing the rules for an Article V Convention.” In explaining why they chose George Washington’s Virginia home as the venue for their assembly, the organizers point to Washington’s “key role in pulling together the Philadelphia Convention of 1787.” What they do not reveal, however, is another more direct connection between the first president’s estate and a wholesale constitutional convention. In March 1785, a meeting of delegates from several states was held in Mt. Vernon. This conference, though nominally very narrow in scope, eventually led to the scrapping of the constitution then in force, the Articles of Confederation. The announced goal of the gathering was to resolve border and trading disputes between Virginia and Maryland. While resulting in no substantial agreement between representatives of the neighboring states, there was a sense that a larger convention — one where more states would be invited — might have enough clout to solve the pressing issues of common concern, principally that of self-preservation. This led to a subsequent meeting the next year in Annapolis, Maryland, that itself resulted in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia. In fact, in 1908, the Inland Waterways Commission made a direct connection between George Washington’s Mt. Vernon Conference and the eventual convening of the 1787 Constitutional Convention: The earliest movement toward developing the inland waterways of the country began when, under the influence of George Washington, Virginia and Maryland appointed commissioners primarily to consider the navigation and improvement of the Potomac; they met in 1785 in Alexandria and adjourned to Mount Vernon, where they planned for extension, pursuant to which they reassembled with representatives of other States in Annapolis in 1786; again finding the task a growing one, a further conference was arranged in Philadelphia in 1787, with delegates from all the States. There the deliberations resulted in the framing of the Constitution, whereby the thirteen original States were united primarily on a commercial basis — the commerce of the times being chiefly by water. Couldn’t that same thing happen in the 2013 Mt. Vernon Assembly that will occur Saturday? Is it improbable to think that a couple of years after the meeting there would be enough momentum to call a proper convention of the states (an Article V convention), one fully empowered to “revise” the Constitution — an event that would actually end up repealing our revered charter? Think also of those who might attend any subsequent conference to consider an Article V constitutional convention. The prospect of a convention endowed with power of this magnitude, populated by politicians (many of whom would likely be bought and paid for by powerful lobbyists and special interest groups) determined to recalibrate the precision gears that give movement to works of our mighty Republic, is frightening and should give pause to everyone considering supporting the Mt. Vernon Assembly 2013 or any subsequent call for an Article V convention. In a “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)” document produced by the promoters of the Mt. Vernon Assembly, readers are assured that the overarching goal of the meeting is to enable states to become “proper stewards of [their] constitutional responsibilities.” Can states not do this without running the risk of exposing our Constitution to special interests, lobbyists, and designing politicians? To begin with, rather than expose the Constitution to the whims of special interest groups, political action committees, corporations, and the politicians they pay for, why not enforce the Constitution as written? For example, there is not a single syllable in the Constitution providing for foreign aid ($74 billion spent from 2010-2011), undeclared wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (nearly $4 trillion spent since 2001), or the 185 federal welfare programs (nearly $2 trillion spent from 2010-2011). In the past decade, based on just those three examples alone, Congress has authorized the spending of over $6 trillion for unconstitutional purposes! Wouldn’t the country’s economic outlook be improved by forcing our federal representatives to obey the limits on their power as provided by the Constitution, rather than allowing the delegates to the Mt. Vernon Assembly (and the powerful interests many of them would be financially beholden to) to call for a new constitutional convention that not only would do nothing to restrain the federal government, but could potentially rewrite our Constitution? The certain risks associated with such a proposal far outweigh the purported benefits. Fortunately, there is another way for states to exercise their collective authority on the federal government without resorting to a constitutional convention. It is the concept described by Thomas Jefferson as the “rightful remedy” for any and all unconstitutional acts of the federal government: nullification. Simply stated, nullification is a concept of legal statutory construction that endows each state with the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that a state deems unconstitutional. Nullification is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof. In a 2010 article in The New American, Larry Greenley of The John Birch Society explained why nullification is a better choice than a constitutional convention when it comes to restoring the balance of power between states and the federal government: To make 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 reassert 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. In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, Madison reaffirms this fundamental principle of constitutional construction: Encroachments springing from a government, whose organization cannot be maintained without the co-operation of the states, furnish the strongest excitements upon the state legislatures to watchfulness, and impose upon them the strongest obligation, to preserve unimpaired the line of partition. With these facts in mind, would it not seem that our nation’s fiscal and political wellbeing is better served by governors jealous of their states’ sovereignty and their rightful role as “shelters against the abuse of power,” signing into law state bills nullifying unconstitutional federal measures (including those that have propelled our national indebtedness into the stratosphere) than by state legislators and others uniting at a constitutional convention with unchecked power to amend our Constitution out of existence in the name of balancing the budget? And there is another discomforting problem facing these state lawmakers-cum-constitution convention delegates. States are faced with the crushing debt of unfunded pensions. These liabilities keep the states dependent on federal largesse. Admittedly, these debts could be wiped out if the federal government were to assume responsibility for them. Of course, such an assumption would require the granting to the federal government an expanded scope of powers. Remarkably, there is a historical precedent for such an arrangement. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, state debts incurred in waging the War for Independence were assumed by the new federal government as part of the “bundle of compromises” that created the Constitution. The relevant question that should be put to the organizers of the Mt. Vernon Assembly is how many of their colleagues in state legislatures and governors’ mansions would happily discharge the debt they helped create by giving the federal government a little more power? It seems wiser and safer to seek out and elect federal representatives committed to never voting for a single spending bill that violates the enumerated powers of the Constitution and refusing to reelect those members of Congress that do vote for such measures. In short, the answer to the crisis lies in following the Constitution, not “fixing” it. Enforcing the Constitution and demanding that states stand up to their would-be federal overlords accomplishes the same goal as the Mt. Vernon Assembly (and any subsequent “convention of the states”) without putting the parchment of the Constitution so close to the shredder that such a convention could become. Finally, considering the fact that the Mt. Vernon collaborators are keen on justifying their confab by claiming that “These types of meetings were used often by our Founders,” it seems appropriate to report what the Father of the Constitution — James Madison — believed about the call for a second constitutional convention being made by some states. Read how timely Madison's warnings remain: You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness. 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 appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans [sic] on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; 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. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable [sic] 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, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. All Americans and state legislators who stand united in their resistance to the constant unconstitutional overreaching of the federal government must also unite in their opposition to the Mt. Vernon Assembly. The states and people must also forcefully reject the Article V constitutional convention that history shows would soon follow a Mt. Vernon Assembly-style “limited meeting.” An Article V convention would be beyond the control of the people or their representatives, and could reasonably result in the proposal by the assembled delegates of potentially fatal and irreversible alterations to our Constitution that could very well end up being ratified to our ruin. Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He is the host of The New American Review radio show that is simulcast on YouTube every Monday. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at [email protected] _________________________ Constitution: Amend or EnforceMy Opinion - COS -- NO !
"...But the most dangerous mirage in politics is the one that promises a deliverance from politics..." David Corbin & Matt Parks Aileen Milton, President The Villages Tea Party __________________________ Something Huge Just Happened; Mainstream Media Ignoring It
Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:42 (Before It's News) Michigan Marks the 34th State Necessary to Commence a Constitutional Convention The following news alert conveys what is perhaps the most important development in these United States of America this year … this decade … this millennium. Truly, it does not get any bigger when the appropriate legal mechanisms have been triggered to initiate a Constitutional Convention. The upshot of this extremely profound and unparalleled initiative implemented by 34 states is as nation-transforming as it is highly consequential for every American citizen. Regardless of where this US Federal Government-altering procedure goes regarding the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment, the message that it sends cannot be misunderstood: We the People are fed up with business-as-usual in Washington DC! That said, the Obama Administration has so operated as a lawless tyranny that the ultimate outcome from this state-driven process was rapidly advanced perhaps by several years. Thank you, President Obama. It appears that he has unwittingly become the ‘change agent’ that he promised to be … only not quite in the way that he planned. Whereas Barack Obama did promise the USA ‘Hope and Change‘, the real change that he is likely to experience in his lifetime has no historical precedence in US history. The inevitable revolution being waged by the states — at the insistence of their citizens — does not ignore the impelling influences by the previous Bush Administration. Back-to-back despotic and rogue administrations served to show the American people just how far the political class has fallen. It is now quite clear, to virtually everyone concerned, that there is no hope for their ‘brand’ of leadership, and therefore no lasting and much needed change can be expected under their watch. For those who comprehend the defining moment at hand, it is still premature to celebrate. The politicos and powerbrokers, corporate titans and business magnates, financiers and bankers, lawyers and lobbyists, will do everything in their power to subvert the upcoming process of realignment. They will do everything in their power to sabotage the originally conceived Constitutional Republic from taking shape. They will seek to disempower both the states and people, as they have always done. Therefore —> Be Aware, and Beware, of the wolves in sheep’s clothing! ! ! From TRN News: The most important political development in 200 years was triggered last week, when the state legislature of Michigan became the 34 th state to demand a “Constitutional Convention” in the United States. Under Article 5 of the US Constitution, if 2/3rds of the states call for such a convention, (meaning 34 states) it MUST take place. During such a convention, the ENTIRE Constitution can be changed; nothing is off-limits. This would even allow the States to dismantle the federal government without its consent, and repudiate the debt which that government has incurred! When it voted for the convention last week, Michigan became the 34 th state, thus meeting the requirement. A goal has been reached behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes. This [may be] the most significant political development in the entire world in the last 200 years. At issue is what’s known as a “constitutional convention,” a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendments to date – requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years — but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it. Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds. In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on today to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter’s interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment — something that could be done at a constitutional convention. “Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan is the 34thstate to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote. “With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House – and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment — determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should this be the case.” If two-thirds of the states have indeed applied, the ball is presumably in Congress’ court to call the convention. But Article V is rather vague, and it’s ultimately unclear whether 34 states have technically applied. In the past, states like Oregon, Utah and Arizona have quietly voted to approve the provision in their legislature. But some of the 34 or so have rescinded their requests. Others have rescinded, and then re-applied. Alabama rescinded its request in 1988 but in 2011, lawmakers again applied for a convention related to an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced. It was a similar story in Florida in 2010. Louisiana rescinded in 1990 but lawmakers have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to reinstate the application since then. It’s unclear whether the applications still count in these scenarios. Some constitutional scholars like Gregory Watson, an analyst in Texas, say once states ask, there may be no take-backs. “There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether a state that has approved an application may later rescind that application,” Watson told The Washington Times. “If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio’s 2013 application for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33 rd and Michigan’s 2014 application would be the 34th on that topic.” Others say if a state changes its mind, it can no longer be part of the 34. Even if the requisite number of states have applied, questions remain about how such a convention would work — and whether, as Michigan wants, such a convention could be limited to only discussing a balanced-budget amendment. It still may be a long shot, but some analysts are warning about the unintended consequences of such a move. In Louisiana, Budget Project Policy Analyst Steve Spire argued against the state’s resolution, saying the convention could permanently damage the nation’s political system. What he calls “damage” others call improvement. Conclusion: The USA now finds itself at a critical moment of the American Experiment. Since the 2000 election of George W. Bush, the divisions between red and blue states have never been so wide and deep. The socio-economic conflicts, political acrimony and philosophical arguments between people of different political persuasions and religious stripes are as intense and reconcile as ever. Given this volatile state of affairs, there must be a new forum in which to rationally discuss and objectively debate the future of the nation. To our thinking, a full blown Constitutional Convention may be the only way out of the current political paralysis. Where such a forum may be exploited by those with selfish and/or narrow interests, the states can act as a gatekeeper to ensure proper and proportionate representation. At the end of the day, the people must be represented in full force, or else such a convention will be an unsuccessful exercise in futility. Now the challenge will be to determine to hold a conference in an ‘unbiased’ location. Or, through a digital format using all the tools available on the internet to keep the dialogue flowing and open to all US citizens. In this way, the corporate media cannot screen out their own prejudiced problems areas or filter in their favorite biases. They are already guilty of giving very little reporting to such an important and historic opportunity, which has emerged from the constitutional crisis they shamelessly helped to create. Perhaps the time has come for the USA to assume the form of constitutional republic that it was designed to be. Although this nation purports to export ‘freedom and democracy’ around the world, our brand of democracy has become totalitarian in nature vacillating between fascism and communism, relentlessly bogged down in political correctness, and administered by leadership that is perennially addicted to deception. Clearly, the time has come for a new form of governance and political economy which truly serve the citizenry; not the other way around. Michael Thomas May 4, 2014 StateoftheNation2012.com The post SOMETHING HUGE JUST HAPPENED; MAINSTREAM MEDIA IGNORING IT appeared first onStoryleak. Source: _________________________ |
Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
AS OF DEC 31, 2016 ...Senator Alan Hays has never provided the information or back up reports on his travels or expenses associated with the Convention of States (COS) as previous requested in the written correspondence below...
On 10/16/2016 03:40 PM, aileen milton wrote:
Dear Senator Hays
Thank you for your reply .. You do not need to send me anything on Justice Scalia since the article below shows Scalia thought the COS was a horrible idea.
The Campaign finance laws and your using these funds for a trip that is not associated with running for supervisor of Election for Lake County is questionable or not clear. But someone with more knowledge on campaign finance laws is required.
The response did not include a reconciliation of your expenses associated with your numerous trips.. but a verbal statement by you that can not be verified without seeing the actual records and receipts with payments. You want us to accept your word. Not sure even your campaign accountant would not be required to have the necessary paper trail on these activities.
I am not your enemy and have supported you in the past nowadays agreeing 80% would be wonderful .. But a fool would be someone who gives a politician a complete pass 100% of the time.. .. That may be the reason this country is in this much trouble .. we voted in politicians and did not hold them accountable. You are making decisions about this concept of a COS without your voters knowledge or approval. You are lying to yourself if you believe that 80% of the voters know or understand what you are involved with and the people that are also associated with you on this matter.
We are asking for a full accounting for all expenses associated with your trips and any meeting in or out of town in any way associated with the COS.
If as you have stated that everything is all above board then it should not be a problem for you or your campaign finance department to furnish us with the necessary and complete information and records.
My understanding that you and others have been part of a limited group who have been meeting behind closed door and involved in writing the Rules for a Convention of States .. now, you can prove this has not happened.
If the FL voters wanted you to do this or have you represent FL in this matter .. they should have a voice in that process.. You seem to have self appointed yourself in this matter.
Know you are busy with running for election.. so please provide the requested information as soon as possible .. we’ll accept a Friday afternoon Oct 21,2016 dump.
I know you agree with me 80% of the time.. and we both respected President Ronald Reagan.
Sincerely,
Aileen Milton
-------
Good Morning Aileen,
I certainly apologize for you not getting the email sent on Monday, October 10. I am pasting it in full below.
I am sorry you have been led to believe so many things are going on behind closed doors involving "dark money". I can assure you I am completely unaware of any such goings on, period.
As a proud American who is very upset with the performance of our Federal government (all three branches), I am doing all I can do by the Constitution, to reform that unfavorable performance.
Nothing done at Williamsburg was clandestine in any way and the plenary session was fed via live-streaming on the internet for the entire world to watch.
We who are engaged in this effort to use the Constitution to reform government, welcome the assistance of others who share our unhappiness and are willing to help us.
I can assure you that I am not aware of any of the closed door activities to which you refer. May I encourage you to seek proof such things are occurring?
Here below, you will find my previous email reply sent Monday.
All the best,
Alan
Aileen and others,
I did not get paid to attend the simulation of an Article V Convention of States. I have no idea who concocted such a story and it really isn't important. I paid for the travel costs from my own pocket and from my campaign account. Not one penny of taxpayer money was expended.
As for the comment from Mr. Garner, I won't dignify that remark with any response.
I hope you are now satisfied that no tax dollars were expended and no one paid me anything for attending the simulation.
As an afterthought, I will attempt to find an article about what the late Justice Scalia had to say about the Article V convention. I know you and I differ on this but I'd also like to encourage you to remember the advice of President Reagan when he said that if a person votes with you 80% or 90% of the time, he isn't your enemy.
Alan
Sent from my iPadOct 16, 2016
---------
Dear Senator Hays,
It is Oct 16, 2016 and a letter was sent to you and you have not responded by the requested date. (Copy of letter below) Additional information is included on the myths about the Convention of States which you are currently very deeply involved in. Your failure to provide the requested information is of a very concerning nature. This possibly proves the influence of dark money and confirms my belief that this is a very dangerous road/project you are going down. The General public is not well informed about the concept of an Article V Convention of States and you are in my opinion overstepping your boundaries in this arena. Senator Hays, know and understand America is Waking up and there are many leaders and citizens in FL and the rest of this country that are aware of what you and others are doing behind closed doors.
You have received emails from other concerned citizens on this issue, they are also waiting for an answer. This letter will be posted as was the previous letter.
Sincerely,
Aileen Milton
Sept 30, 2016
Dear Senator Alan Hays,
We are requesting a copy in writing of any and all disclosure reports within the next 14 days and no later than Oct 15, 2016 on the travel benefits you received or have submitted or hope to receive and from whom you received or will receive them for your recent trip to Williamsburg, VA for this simulated Convention of States. Plus we want copies of all the other trips and disclosure reports where you have previously participated in these meeting on this matter.
Thank you
A Concerned Citizen
Aileen Milton
The Villages Tea Party, President
thevillagesteaparty.org
thevillagesconservativemedia.com
[email protected]
On 10/16/2016 03:40 PM, aileen milton wrote:
Dear Senator Hays
Thank you for your reply .. You do not need to send me anything on Justice Scalia since the article below shows Scalia thought the COS was a horrible idea.
The Campaign finance laws and your using these funds for a trip that is not associated with running for supervisor of Election for Lake County is questionable or not clear. But someone with more knowledge on campaign finance laws is required.
The response did not include a reconciliation of your expenses associated with your numerous trips.. but a verbal statement by you that can not be verified without seeing the actual records and receipts with payments. You want us to accept your word. Not sure even your campaign accountant would not be required to have the necessary paper trail on these activities.
I am not your enemy and have supported you in the past nowadays agreeing 80% would be wonderful .. But a fool would be someone who gives a politician a complete pass 100% of the time.. .. That may be the reason this country is in this much trouble .. we voted in politicians and did not hold them accountable. You are making decisions about this concept of a COS without your voters knowledge or approval. You are lying to yourself if you believe that 80% of the voters know or understand what you are involved with and the people that are also associated with you on this matter.
We are asking for a full accounting for all expenses associated with your trips and any meeting in or out of town in any way associated with the COS.
If as you have stated that everything is all above board then it should not be a problem for you or your campaign finance department to furnish us with the necessary and complete information and records.
My understanding that you and others have been part of a limited group who have been meeting behind closed door and involved in writing the Rules for a Convention of States .. now, you can prove this has not happened.
If the FL voters wanted you to do this or have you represent FL in this matter .. they should have a voice in that process.. You seem to have self appointed yourself in this matter.
Know you are busy with running for election.. so please provide the requested information as soon as possible .. we’ll accept a Friday afternoon Oct 21,2016 dump.
I know you agree with me 80% of the time.. and we both respected President Ronald Reagan.
Sincerely,
Aileen Milton
-------
Good Morning Aileen,
I certainly apologize for you not getting the email sent on Monday, October 10. I am pasting it in full below.
I am sorry you have been led to believe so many things are going on behind closed doors involving "dark money". I can assure you I am completely unaware of any such goings on, period.
As a proud American who is very upset with the performance of our Federal government (all three branches), I am doing all I can do by the Constitution, to reform that unfavorable performance.
Nothing done at Williamsburg was clandestine in any way and the plenary session was fed via live-streaming on the internet for the entire world to watch.
We who are engaged in this effort to use the Constitution to reform government, welcome the assistance of others who share our unhappiness and are willing to help us.
I can assure you that I am not aware of any of the closed door activities to which you refer. May I encourage you to seek proof such things are occurring?
Here below, you will find my previous email reply sent Monday.
All the best,
Alan
Aileen and others,
I did not get paid to attend the simulation of an Article V Convention of States. I have no idea who concocted such a story and it really isn't important. I paid for the travel costs from my own pocket and from my campaign account. Not one penny of taxpayer money was expended.
As for the comment from Mr. Garner, I won't dignify that remark with any response.
I hope you are now satisfied that no tax dollars were expended and no one paid me anything for attending the simulation.
As an afterthought, I will attempt to find an article about what the late Justice Scalia had to say about the Article V convention. I know you and I differ on this but I'd also like to encourage you to remember the advice of President Reagan when he said that if a person votes with you 80% or 90% of the time, he isn't your enemy.
Alan
Sent from my iPadOct 16, 2016
---------
Dear Senator Hays,
It is Oct 16, 2016 and a letter was sent to you and you have not responded by the requested date. (Copy of letter below) Additional information is included on the myths about the Convention of States which you are currently very deeply involved in. Your failure to provide the requested information is of a very concerning nature. This possibly proves the influence of dark money and confirms my belief that this is a very dangerous road/project you are going down. The General public is not well informed about the concept of an Article V Convention of States and you are in my opinion overstepping your boundaries in this arena. Senator Hays, know and understand America is Waking up and there are many leaders and citizens in FL and the rest of this country that are aware of what you and others are doing behind closed doors.
You have received emails from other concerned citizens on this issue, they are also waiting for an answer. This letter will be posted as was the previous letter.
Sincerely,
Aileen Milton
Sept 30, 2016
Dear Senator Alan Hays,
We are requesting a copy in writing of any and all disclosure reports within the next 14 days and no later than Oct 15, 2016 on the travel benefits you received or have submitted or hope to receive and from whom you received or will receive them for your recent trip to Williamsburg, VA for this simulated Convention of States. Plus we want copies of all the other trips and disclosure reports where you have previously participated in these meeting on this matter.
Thank you
A Concerned Citizen
Aileen Milton
The Villages Tea Party, President
thevillagesteaparty.org
thevillagesconservativemedia.com
[email protected]