What Can the People Do to Restore Liberty, Part 7 (Constitutional Convention)

by Tim Baldwin, Liberty Defense League

TimBaldwinA200America’s Declaration of Independence declares,

the people have a right “to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Essential to this power is the people’s right to call a constitutional convention, where the people from various political societies send delegates to meet with other delegates for the purpose establishing a new constitution. As our history well shows, liberty can be restored through this power, although such an act is, in reality, an act of revolution because the Constitution does not provide for States to call a constitutional convention to create a new constitution.

The opposition to such a convention is essentially identical to the opposition to a constitutional amendment convention. In truth, the reason opponents resist an amendment convention is for fear that it will turn into a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution. I need not rehash the opposition’s arguments, nor do I need to reassert my arguments against those fears. See, Part 6. What is distinct, however, about the constitutional convention is that it is expressly designed to create a new constitution, not just to amend specific parts.

What are the effects of a constitutional convention?

With the unique purpose of a convention come unique opportunities. Recall that the opponents to the constitution of 1787 argued that the delegates to the convention did not have the authority from the people to draft a new constitution; they based their reason on the idea that the delegates could only amend the Articles of Confederation, not propose a new constitution. The Federalists set forth to prove that the Anti-Federalist arguments were not persuasive or correct. Madison said in response to their argument,

Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation OF THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL THE STATES, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed by the PEOPLE, and may be carried into effect by NINE STATES ONLY. It is worthy of remark that this objection, though the most plausible, has been the least urged in the publications which have swarmed against the convention. The forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve States to the perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth. (Madison, FP 40.)

Madison observes that no number of States should have the power to prevent other States to reform government and the union as they deem necessary. In other words, regardless of constitutional forbearance, the inherent right of the people to choose their government trumps any prior constitutional provisions preventing that. Madison said further, citing the American Declaration of Independence as his authority,

forms ought to give way to substance; that a rigid adherence in such cases to the former, would render nominal and nugatory 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’ since it is impossible for the people spontaneously and universally to move in concert towards their object. (Madison, FP 40.)

This reasoning was monumental to the future of the United States. There are two effects that they understood then and we must understand now.

First, since the plan was new and operated outside their constitution’s amendment provision, it was naturally requisite that the delegates submit the new plan to the people as a recommendation. The Federalists said, “this plan is only RECOMMENDED, not imposed.” (John Jay, FP 2.)

Second, those States that did not ratify the new constitution remained a part of the old union and were independent from the new union. Madison described the new relationship this way: “no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States[;] yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled.” (Madison, FP 43.) In other words, they will remain friends even though they would be governed by different governments.

In a strict sense, the new constitution was secession from the union under the Articles of Confederation. The Federalists termed this movement as “claims of justice” and “rights of humanity.” (Madison, FP 43.) And it was accomplished through a people’s constitutional convention (as opposed to secession act passed by the legislature without expressed authority of the people, as in the case of the 1860s). But of course, the non-ratifying states could have treated the seceding States as usurpers of the Articles of Confederation, invoking both constitutional law and Law of Nations.

Are separate unions in America a good or bad thing?

The better question is, is it a good thing that the people choose what political associations under which they want to live? The Americans from 1776 to 1791 answered, “good” as necessity required. We know the Federalists strongly advocated that all of the States ratify the new constitution. As a new union, they faced many obstacles just to ensure their survival. Naturally a baby-nation requires much more unity for its survival than does an established and powerful one. Regardless, the new constitution did not require all of the States to ratify to remove them from the Article’s “perpetual union” and “firm league.” This means they expected and accepted that one-fourth of the union would be separated by the ratification of the new constitution.

If this topic were brought to the table today, it is likely that many people would feel the same. In my experience, I am finding more and more people amiable and even excited about the idea of a smaller, more manageable union—especially my generation. For many, the political conditions of the United States are so polemical that one constitution cannot meet the needs and philosophies of our societies. As many “conservatives” claim about our direction, America is “socialist” or worse. As many “liberals” claim, America is ruined by capitalism and greed. The two philosophies cannot exist forever, just as Lenin claimed during the Russian Revolution of 1917.

The Federalists understood the science of this and admitted that dissolution of a federal union is inevitable when the federal government continually assumes power to which States object. Madison observes, “A dissolution or usurpation is the dreadful dilemma to which [the union] is continually exposed [when the federal government overleaps its constitutional limits].” (FP 38.) This is inevitable even when the government determines it “could not have done otherwise” and believes the “public interest, the necessity of the case, imposed upon them the task of overleaping their constitutional limits.” (Madison, FP 38.)

On even a relatively smaller matter, the Federalists believed that dissolution of the union would occur when the people’s right of election is undermined. Hamilton predicted that “a dissolution of the Union [might issue] if the leaders of a few of the most important States should have entered into a previous conspiracy to prevent an election.” (Hamilton, FP 59, emphasis added.) How many conservatives today who oppose a constitutional convention also claim we do not have “free and fair” elections and claim the entire political process is controlled by conspiratorial elites? Do they think a free republic exists under that scenario?

On virtually every important political point, conservatives today cannot talk about politics without declaring that the federal government has destroyed and is destroying our Constitution. These denunciations include, the federal government operates as a corporation and not a government, federal politicians are bought and paid for by global elitists, there is no hope in restoring liberty through the federal government, and the like. Any one or combination of these arguments shows that conservatives believe the federal government routinely violates the Constitution and overleaps its constitutional limits a matter of course.

If these conservatives accept what our Founders concluded regarding political science and the inevitable dissolution of the union under these scenarios, what other hopeful remedy can be made to successfully rid conservative States from Socialist States? If the current (and foreseeable) combination of the States will only lead us all in the same direction of Socialism and Statism, how can the libertarian, conservative, and capitalist States expect to survive under such a constitutional condition?

Is a constitution convention inevitable?

In my view, a plenipotentiary convention will not take place before the States have convened to amend the Constitution under Article V–rightly so. However, assuming a constitutional convention would create a constitution destructive of liberty and rights, fifty states will still have to debate the proposed new constitution and a certain percentage would have to ratify it before it became effective, just as the States did from 1787 to 1791–assuming the non-ratifying states allow the other States that propose a new constitution to get that far without declaring their usurpation of the Constitution.

Regardless of the threshold needed to put the new constitution into effect (which would likely be no less than a simple majority and no more than three-fourths), the dissenting States will remain under the existing Constitution and the ratifying States will effectively secede (i.e. revolution), creating a new union of States separate from the existing union. If two unions become effective, each union will become masters of their own fate, free to choose which political principles will move their direction.

Unlike what happened in 1787, one can dogmatically state today that there is no way every State in the union will ratify a new constitution. Assuming the “worst” from a constitutional convention (should one even take place), as we can see in the Tenth Amendment movement today, dissenting States will choose to remain under the Constitution because they believe in Federalism and reject Nationalism and Socialism. This is why using Article V to amend the Constitution through the States will be secure and will effectively limit the federal government.  A new union of States would have no power to force non-ratifying States to accept the new constitution.

If conservatives are going to be true to their beliefs and if political science is actually applied to political conditions in America, one would have to strongly consider that America could exist very well with more than one union. If America can live at peace with China, Russia, Europe and virtually every nation in the world with few exceptions; if America can trade freely with the world (and that be considered a good thing); if America has the capability of reconciling international conflicts with hostile enemies routinely, how in the name of Reason and Experience can America not work a solution to create separate unions peacefully with our friends and neighbors in a way that protects the interests of everyone?

While the Federalists wanted one union in America, they agreed having more than one union would be possible, perhaps probable. To them, the effect of Article VII was more lasting than just four States not being in the new union. It would have meant that new territories could have applied to become new States with either union, causing both unions to grow over time. In effect, it could have created, say, 25 states in one union and 25 states in the other.

To argue that the founding generation thought this was destructive to our liberty defies what Article VII of the Constitution explicitly reveals about their willingness to have more than one union in America. Only the emotional, unreasoned thinker would conclude that since America has always been one union it should remain one forever. Only a biased ideologue would oppose such a thing on mere tradition or what people who have been dead for over 200 years “would have wanted.” These are the same people that reject using Article V to amend the Constitution to limit the federal government. Sadly, they presume the worst and have little or not faith in Americans today.

People must make decisions for themselves today, not just for some unknown posterity in hopes that rejecting new proposals will somehow better their lives and restore their liberty. What political methods have not been pursued to “get America back to the Constitution” in the past 150 years? Everything—except the constitutional amendment and convention process.

Perhaps there will be nothing that will get some Americans to think in these terms until the inevitable happens—dissolution of the union—except in that case, it will occur in much less friendly terms than the people’s delegates gathering for the purpose of implementing reason, reflection and choice. If dissolution is inevitable, as many conservatives claim, what good can come to our States from a violent dissolution? Do you think trying to build a nation out of war when we are vulnerable to foreign invasion and more will be easier than in peace when we are strong economically and militarily? Why must we lose everything before a proper course is chosen?

Americans who want to restore liberty and the Constitution in their States should begin analyzing our political situation in terms of political association and unions and talking honestly and openly about how, first, constitutional amendments will benefit America. If that does not work, the next logical discussion is the constitutional convention. Before a convention happens, however, we must use Article V to amend the Constitution to limit the federal government and restore a proper federal balance with the States. If we reject this sound, workable solution, then people will likely be forced to convene at a constitutional convention out of utter necessity and dire straits. I propose we use the better choice of Article V first.

68 thoughts on “What Can the People Do to Restore Liberty, Part 7 (Constitutional Convention)”

  1. Instead of a Constitutional Convention, couldn't we just start the process of a Constitutional Amendment repealing all amendments back to the Bill of Rights – Thereby restoring our original constitution.

    All the agencies and departments would dissolve, except for the Navy, Air Force, Marines… Then, in an orderly fashion we pension out the federal employees, or offer them jobs cleaning our and recycling all the buildings around DC which will no longer be needed, bring home our military from everywhere, put them on the border and send them back to the various states to work at non-combat things like cleaning up military bases.

    Between the dissolution of the extra-constitutional bureaucracies, the Federal Reserve and the determination to produce all our own energy domestically, we would unleash the power of the free market, and this country would soar taking the rest of the world with us. If we came at this through the states, with a plan this bold, we would be successful. The young people are primed. All they need is a leader.

  2. There are some amendments that could or should be repealed, such as the 16th and 17th amendments (by the way, not all should be, such as Amendment 11). However, you may be missing why Article V is really needed.

    Most of the federal government's power is used through the Commerce and Tax Power. Except for Amendment 16, Amendments 11 – 27 have nothing to do with this Jurisprudence. The US S CT has interpreted the Commerce and Tax Power to be essentially limitless. Therein lies the way Federalism has been destroyed by Nationalism. The ONLY WAY you can effectively change this is through Article V.

    By the way, I didn't realize this when I wrote my articles, but Mark Levin is now advocating an Article V convention and is releasing a new book on the subject. http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=M

    He and I have written on parallel subjects before. My "Freedom For A Change" book was written just before he released his "Ameritopia," and both address virtually identical subjects. Obviously, however, the difference is, he has an audience.

    Article V is screaming, "ready or not, here I come!"

  3. I assume that the comments are subjected to approval…so how long before my last comment gets approved?

    BTW Why do you even think that because Levin is advocating a Art V con con that would change anyone's mind who doesn't support it? Pleeesssse! Do try another big name creditable talk show entertainer! LOL LOL LOL

  4. OK. So apparently my post that I was referring to in my last comment got lost. Here goes again.

    One: the powers that be are ignoring the constitution now, so why would amending it benefit the people? Amending it, just to justify the federal government going beyond it's limited authority?

    BTW, using the repeal of the 16th amendment is just putting sugar on a con con con, no matter what con it is. People are getting more and more fed up with the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve IRS henchmen collection agency, so they'll jump on that one for sure.

    Did the 16th give congress any new powers? Especially the power to lay and collect direct taxes on the people?

    Explain why it states "… among the several States…"?

    Here's another one you can explain. Article I section 8 clause 17, that funny term "not exceeding ten Miles square" in regards to Federal legislation and jurisdiction?

    Why does it seem like lawyers always want to do things that benefit the law profession? Amend the constitution with more "Congress shall have power to enforce this…by appropriate legislation"? No thanks!

    Try this one on for size: Citizen Petitioned Grand Juries. There's a national movement to do this, National Liberty Alliance.org. Bringing it back to MT, here's something better.

    In 2010 there was a petition to get CI-106: The Montana Citizens Grand Juries Amendment on the ballot. Unfortunately the process started late and the required # of signatures wasn't met. This would definitely be one step toward the solution of political prosecutorial discretion and court discretion, intentionally delayed trial process, etc. It would also hold public officials who abuse their position of power, accountable.

    Two: Support a state bill regarding the jury oath of office. That it should be consistent with the Oath of office that all legislative , executive, ministerial and judicial members and officers take. One lawyer/constitution expert/ex U of M law professor wasn't familiar with the wording so he wouldn't comment on it.

    FYI Mt Constitution Art III sec 3 almost word for word as the Fed constitution. N. Carolina just passed a bill SB 528 doing just that. What would this accomplish? The clear message would be to the jury that the statute[s] the defendant was accused of violating may not be, among other things, constitutional. Hence, Jury Nullification.

    Put the power back where it belongs with the people calling the shots. Not the feds, with the sole discretion of the courts and it's industrial legalize complex. The "Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, "We'll lie and the Judicial branch will swear to it" government must and will come to an end!

    Now if you lawyers got on board supporting these two viable solutions, then I can believe everything else you all say regarding restoring Liberty.

  5. Berthold Klein

    If the current constitution was enforced and all parties understood that we are a federation of states who have given only certain rights to the central government.

    The secretaries of state to put it mildly Fu-k up because they accepted the statement of Nancy Pelosi that Obama meet the requirements of the constitution.

    If the secretary of states of only a few states decertified their electoral votes of 2008 and/or 2012 ,Obama will no longer be the impostor president.
    None of the executive orders would mean anything.

    The states can do something about our liberty now, not 2 years from now or never.

    The courts would be filled with case of Treason against both democrats and some republicans who co-operated with the over throw of the United States of America.

  6. It is hard to argue reason with people who (1) think lawyers are out to create a system that benefits them and enslaves everyone else, (2) use ad hominem arguments (against Levin) to dissuade others from thinking about good ideas and (3) think laughing makes their arguments stronger.

    The argument that Congress only has jurisdiction in D.C. is ludicrous. "Exclusive jurisdiction" simply meant that the States had no jurisdiction to legislate in that district. As Joseph Story stated in his Commentaries on the Constitution, "It never could be safe to leave in possession of any state the exclusive power to decide, whether the functionaries of the national government should have the moral or physical power to perform their duties." In all other areas of the States, the Federal Government and the States exercised CONCURRENT jurisdiction over the people in those States. (Do people read the Federalist Papers anymore?)

    I will respond to the general idea that juries are the answer to the federal system. First, I wrote on jury nullification already. http://libertydefenseleague.com/Articles/tabid/52….

    Second, the grand jury only relates to charging people with crimes. It does not define the limits of federal power. Again, federal power has grown through the commerce and tax power almost exclusively. If one studies the Federalist Papers, the grand jury was not mentioned one time as an inherent right or as the answer to correcting federal power. Limiting the federal government was deemed to be accomplished by the provision of the Constitution (checks and balances) and the structure of the union (federalism).

    One can only presume then that those who think the grand jury is the answer are excited about the chance of charging with crimes those disagreeable politicians for "treason," when in fact, their only crime is that they have a different point of view than their accusers. Scary. Witch hunts do not create freedom, but constitutional amendments can change the direction of our States and nation in a fundamental, long-lasting way–with or without citizen grand juries.

    Arguing "why should we correct the constitution when they don't follow it anyway" inflames an emotional response to a scientific question, misstates reality and reveals a bias against a federal constitutional system. It ignores the practice of the judicial system, which most people are unwilling to study. It ignores the reality that fundamental laws DO shape the decisions of courts.

    The fact that something is distorted (and we know it) means that it has an original meaning or sense. Are contracts breached in society? Of course, but that a contract can be broken does not mean we abandon contract law. It is the job of the people to correct constitutional errors that may come in the form isolated events or synthesized jurisprudence.

    No, a constitution is not self-imposing. Madison said this in FP 48 ("Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power?") People must ensure its maintenance, and the most fundamental method to do this is Article V.

    Furthermore, to state that the courts will ignore language designed to remedy a constitutional problem implies–or even expresses–that no man is worthy of trust regarding any matter. Which philosopher supports such a theory? If there is such a one, cite his work and propose a new constitutional system.

    This is not the human nature our Constitution rests on, which is this: "The institution of delegated power implies, that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind, which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence; and experience justifies the theory." (Hamilton, FP 76.) If there is such virtue in mankind that we can trust, then means amending our Constitution IS in fact the answer to fundamental constitutional problems.

    Interestingly, if we cannot trust judges or attorneys or politicians at all, because they are (wo)men, how can we trust grand juries, which are (wo)men? Are these grand juries going to be the same people who presume to shoot down a drone in a state of peace?–by the same people who presume to "shoot first, ask questions later"?

    Rights can be harmed more so by overly-zealous anarchists than by assuming politicians. This, in fact, formed the basis of creating the Constitution. Hamilton said in FP 1, "a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.” FP 1. I think many Americans are guilty of the same fallacy today.

    Away with the notion that we cannot create better forms of government today because of the way things have developed over time or because Americans are not "smart" enough today. The United States can fix much of its problems through amendments and alleviate a lot of tension that has built for centuries and seems to be coming to a head in many respects. Of course, those who truly want to improve our system should expect to put the time into studying the truth of those matters.

  7. I entered this test comment because at least one person, Fred Hammel, could not get his comment accepted. I entered this comment from my laptop computer without logging in, so I simulated being anyone else out there. My comment showed up instantly.

    I have WordPress set so your comment should show up instantly, assuming you enter the right Captcha code. I accept and encourage all opinions. I will delete a comment only if it does not meet acceptable standards of decency. Please tell me if you have a problem adding your comment.

  8. Fred Hammel emailed me his comment. Here it is. – Ed

    By Fred Hammel:
    http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Aqp6jCK8VQ2JT

    This is an Article written on a Constitution convention by Don Fotheringham, Constitution scholar for the John Birch society.

    The article written byTim, I do not agree with, first of all, Montana new 1972 Constitution was written to empower the legal system.

    We the People, well when 55% of Americas workforce works for government, plus another 20 to 30 million retired government employees, these people are going to vote for politicians who will give them largess from the public treasury. The salaries of these government employees are all most double of those working in the private sector, when you add in all the benefits and early retirement, that pension starts the day they retire. Remember only the private sector pay taxes.

    Tim talks about the Fully Informed Jury, most judges will not allow this in their court room, so if I want to get on jury duty, I must lie, especially when the judge says, you will follow my interruption of the law.

    Tim talks about the Grand Jury, well the grand jury is not used in most states, in Montana only a district judge can call for a grand jury.

    The last grant jury was called 40 years. Tim also says the grand jury only relates to charging people for a crime, wrong, wants a grand jury when called it can look at corruption within the City, County, or State , it can look at politician who violate their oath to the Constitution.

    Tim never talks about Amendments that destroyed the Constitution, like the 14th,17th, and the 19th amendments. Look at Roosevelt on how he destroyed our economic system by installing Keynesian-ism. Look at Wickard v. Filburn, government use this small farmer to gain more power. Look Johnson's great society an how it created the welfare state.

    Look at Pres. Nixon and how he destroyed American workforce, by affirmative action and quotas and the EPA these were products of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. In my opinion all civil rights laws came right out the communist hand book.

    Then Tim mentions "Why should we correct the Constitution, when they don't follow it anyway", Tim who should make sure they follow their Oath to the Constitution, the Justice system, but they they do not follow the Constitution.

    To solve this problem we must restore Articles 1,2 and 3. Article 1 all power power is vested in Congress, only the House can spend the peoples money. under Article 2, The President has very little power, he is not a KING. Article 3, The Supreme Court is not allow to interrupted the Constitution. To restore checks and balances, repeal the 17th Amendment.

  9. I am unconvinced by the smooth-tongued Mr. Baldwin. It is all too easy to give "assurances" that we "need not let it be a run-away" or that it is "okay to replace the Constitution because the Declaration of Independence says so…(based on WHAT history, exactly, other than the ONE Con-Con that this Continent saw, which threw out the former constitutional base?).

    I did NOT see what Tim sees in the Declaration. Throwing out a government means to remove those sitting and replace them; it does not, per se, mean replacing the Constitution. But, a Con-Con risks EVERY thing we have in our current Constitution, all while the forces of evil (oooo paranoia!) surround us to the point that the only recourse against those forces… is FORCE.

    We do not need a Con-Con, because quite simply and solely, it cannot be constrained to one or two "simple amendments" to get government "back on track". Democrats and RINOS we already know out-number those of us who want government OUT of our lives, not meddling further, and THEY will be the ones YOU send to vote on YOUR behalves…

    Think long and hard before giving Mr. Baldwin's idea any credence, or EFFECTIVE power. A Con-Con is aptly named: it is a double con.

  10. Regarding Fred:

    I already responded to the John Birch Society's position. In addition, the article Fred cites is froth with errors regarding what a constitutional convention requires; namely, if the convention were to set the threshold at a lower number than what the Constitution requires in Article V (as happened in 1787), the States that don't ratify a new constitution under those parameters remain under the current Constitution. The other States have no authority to bind them to a lesser threshold. Thus, the premise of JBS of not supporting an amendment convention is false.

    But again as I say, if the State are incapable of correcting the federal government through amendment, then there is no method at all to correct them. Strangely enough, Fred (at the conclusion of his comments, which I address below) think our hope is to use Congress to reestablish constitutional limits. Under Fred's theory, the people are trust their liberty and its restoration more so in Congress and US S CT than in the people and their delegates for the expressed purpose of amending the Constitution to limit federal power.

    Fred's reference to Montana's constitution has nothing to do with the issue. We are talking about a federal constitution convention. But regarding Article 2 of MT Constitution, it is one of the best to reserve inalienable rights of the people, showing that people still care deeply about individual liberty and limiting government.

    Of course, a State constitution is of a completely different nature than a federal. In a state constitution, all powers not reserved are delegated to the government, and in a federal constitution, all powers not given are reserved. So, Fred's analogy to Montana's constitution is comparing an apple to an orange. In fact, if anything is suggested by Fred's comment, it is that the people would prefer to give more power to their States than the federal government. Most people know that the federal government is too big–even democrats. The Tenth Amendment movement shows this in part, just as many of the other resistance movements to an overreaching federal government.

    Fred's usual talking point about everyone being on the "dole" does not hold water. Looking at the political landscape today, there is more resistance to federal laws than ever before. If Fred's theory were true, then the States would not be resisting as they have been for the past decade, but they are more and more; and these States are comprised of the same people Fred declares are so slavish that they would rather the government feed them than to go do work. I wonder if Fred would include the military as being on the "dole" as well and thus without the character needed to improve our country? Is it Fred's thought that everyone and anyone who has received a dime from the federal government would give more power to the federal government in an amendment convention?

    I received federal school loans to attend law school. I also receive money from the State when I represent clients who are appointed by the Court to be represented because they cannot afford one. Do I fall into the "dole" category? By Fred's characterization of the American people as being on the "dole," I should be advocating for more federal power, but obviously, I am not.

    I also know friends and acquaintances that receive federal assistance in various areas, yet they are as resistant to more federal power than anyone. Fred's theory is an insult to those people, and there are hundreds of thousands of them across America. Fred does not give normal Americans credit to protect their interest in a convention.

    Fred says I talk about a fully informed jury…I am not talking about this power as being the answer to the problems the UNION is facing. It is NOT the answer. Furthermore, the fully informed jury is a state matter. Do you think that such a law would pass in Congress! No, and so Fred's proposed solution (see below) is even more remote for success than an Article V convention.

    In truth, federal power can only be effectively limited through Article V. The Courts have established their endless power through the Commerce and Tax power. This CANNOT be undone any other way except through Article V. Prove otherwise.

    Fred says that I talk about the Grand Jury…I am not talking about the grand jury as being the method of limited federal power. It is NOT the answer, and the same analysis applies to this as well as to the jury nullification issue.

    Fred says I never talk about Amendments that destroyed the Constitution, like the 14th,17th, and the 19th amendments. I do talk about such issues. Still, these amendments do not address the source of the federal government's power to regulate the internal affairs of the States: that has come by virtue of the Commerce and Tax power.

    The 14th amendment extended some federal power, but that is not the constitutional source for most of Congress' power to regulate the internal affairs of the States. It is the Commerce and Tax Power, as the Obamacare case aptly shows.

    Fred proves my point by referring to Wickard v. Filburn. In that case, the US S CT ruled that the government could regulate even the smallest farm operations through the commerce power. None of the amendments Fred cites are used as the basis of Congress' ability to regulate the individual farmer and what he can grow, sell and distribute.

    Since then, the federal government's power to regulate commerce has become essentially unfettered. This JURISPRUDENCE will not change through a grand jury or informed jury. It will not change through the amendments Fred mentions, and it will not change even by the Tenth Amendment, which is the source most attorneys use to argue against the Commerce Power effect.

    Under the JBS approach, we could wait another 250 years to hopefully get a new US S CT to change the precedent to pre-Wickard analysis. Good luck with that. This approach is not self-government and rests hope in something they declare does not even exist. In other words, they are trying to save something the Courts have changed over time, and thus, the "original" meaning is not even applied regardless of words on a paper.

    As time has changed something, it takes an act of the PEOPLE to reset the timer and start again. Yes, time may change the thing again, but the PEOPLE must readdress those problems at the right time. Hoping to unwind a twisted and knotted ball of yarn is simply wasting valuable time. Denying that an Article V convention is the most viable solution is only pretending.

    Fred proves my point again by referring to the EPA and Civil Rights bills, all of which were upheld by the US S CT through the Commerce Clause. What reasonable person honestly believes that this line of precedent is going to be changed through the juries or through electing Senators through State legislators? Jurisprudence can only be created through judges, not juries. Yes, a jury may "nullify" a law–and even a federal law–but the JUDGES create Jurisprudence, and they have created the Jurisprudence of the Commerce and Tax power of Congress.

    Fred seems to believe the argument that since "they don't follow the Constitution anyway, they would do the same even if we amend it." This argument is completely baseless. This argument actually slaps the face of the anti-Article V position. What these people are saying is, we can't change it because they won't follow it anyway; therefore, we need to keep it the way it is because all we need to do is "get back to the original constitution." "Getting back to the constitution" means that the words have a bearing on the direction of JURISPRUDENCE.

    If one thinks we are going to "get back" our jurisprudence in the next 5 generations without an Article V convention, I would love to see the map for that trip. In truth, no such map exists, because it is impossible.

    Ironically, Fred then states that the way to solve our problems is through Congress. This makes no sense. Fred's "solution" only throws the people into the same method of redress most people would admit is fruitless. Even if the amendments Fred would like to see repealed were repealed, this does not change the Jurisprudence of the Commerce and Tax Power. Additionally, Congress does not change Jurisprudence; it acts as far as the US S CT allows it, and the US S CT has placed their rubber stamp a long time ago.

    Yes, we may get a good Congress and President every now and then, but this is only a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Congress cannot change the fabrics that have been interwoven into our constitutional system through decades of decisions that have explained what Congress may do under the Commerce and Tax power. As soon as a good Congress goes in, a bad one may follow and undo everything they did and backlash even worse laws.

    Understand, Jurisprudence is created by judges who extrapolate the Constitution–who "say what the law is." The Federalists admitted this as well and expected the people to watch the Judiciary and when necessary to amend the Constitution to correct their long line of incorrect rulings.

    Finally, Fred thinks that repealing the 17th amendment will solve the problems of federal power. The 17th amendment only addresses how the States elect the Senators. Yes, having the state legislators elect the Senators will bring the States more into the federal process and thus bring more accountability to the Senators. But this addresses a FORM; it does not address the SUBSTANCE of the problem.

    To address the substance of limiting federal power, the source of that power must be amended. That source is the COMMERCE CLAUSE and TAX CLAUSE. Given what the US S CT has interpreted these powers to mean and given Congress' using those rulings to conduct their business, the only effective method is to redefine what the people declare is a misinterpretation of the Constitution.

    Regarding Jim:

    He says, "I did NOT see what Tim sees in the Declaration. Throwing out a government means to remove those sitting and replace them; it does not, per se, mean replacing the Constitution."

    I'm sorry to say, Jim, but you are completely misguided in your thinking. If you read my articles, you would have seen where Madison used the Declaration of Independence to justify proposing a new constitution to the people with a ratification of only 3/4 of the States, when the Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent of the States to amend the constitution. The 3/4 of the states that ratified the new constitution were seceding the Articles of Confederation. Those states that did not ratify would have remained under the Articles.

    So, yes, in fact, replacing government means you can create a new constitution. This is what Fred, JBS, and others fear: they know that the people have the right to create a new constitution or to amend it as they see fit. They are simply scared that the people will create something worse than what we currently have even under the Jurisprudence as it exists today.

    Additionally, I am not basing my analysis on the Declaration of Independence. I don't know where you got that.

    What would really be helpful for anyone who wants to rebut my claims is to cite directly from my article point by point so there is logical cohesion to the rebuttals and replies.

    Regarding Mike Donahue:

    He said, "Lugubrious pedantry. But Elena seems to be grounded." He offers nothing, so no rebuttal is needed.

  11. Tim Baldwin said: "Under Fred’s theory, the people are trust their liberty and its restoration more so in Congress and US S CT than in the people and their delegates for the expressed purpose of amending the Constitution to limit federal power."

    Under Tim Baldwin's theory, the people should trust their delegates to be able to what delegates and candidates and winners of election to both Congress and the Presidency AND the Supine Court have been unable to do: "limit federal power"…

    In WHAT alternate universe must a person be living to think the CURRENT Constitution (WITHOUT amendments 11-26) does not already "limit federal power"? Why do we need an amendment to "make it so" when we already have a Constitution that does just what he proposes can "only" be done with a Con-Con – ie, "limit federal power"?

    It is up to the legislatures to make it so, not the people "in convention" (more like a mob, since there are NO Constitutionally defined ground rules). Why does Mr. Baldwin trust, for example, representatives from PETA to make his right to bear arms safe? I sure wouldn't! Yet there WILL be representatives from EVERY SINGLE interest group in the US clamoring to be delegates of their positions, and there will not be sufficient room at the Astrodome to house them all. Then, try getting a sane resolution to "limit federal power" passed by those thousands of delegates!

    Again, Mr. Baldwin, under what rules are we to operate such a Con-con? The Constitution does not limit the interest group participation anywhere! Again, there is no limit to the NUMBER of delegates each state may send, making this more like herding cats than conducting civil government.

  12. Tim Baldwin said: "The 3/4 of the states that ratified the new constitution were seceding the Articles of Confederation. Those states that did not ratify would have remained under the Articles." Appears as if Mr. Baldwin missed a point of WHY only 9 of 13 votes were required (or did vote for the first "final" draft of the new Constitution). That is, many of the state delegates said they would not ratify until there was a Bill of Rights appended, and it was that threat that FORCED the Bill of Rights into existence, and then 10 of which original 12 "articles of amendment" were ratified (one of which, payment, was ratified by a much later Congress)…

    Secondly, Mr. Baldwin ASSERTS "Denying that an Article V convention is the most viable solution is only pretending." I can only surmise that the good attorney Baldwin believes what he believes, that "an Article V convention is" the ONLY viable solution – or else he would not be pushing it while denying to THE PEOPLE the right to disagree and/or come up with other solutions. The Second Amendment, for example, in today's violence-prone world, is the ONLY "likely" one to which "the people" may have recourse, because we KNOW we can not trust the Press (first amendment), Congress, many state legislatures, nor the courts nor the presidents, to correct and "limit federal power".

    By merely asserting that we must use the Article V method of a Con-con, Mr. Baldwin denies to the people their Declared Independent right to "throw the bums out by force, if necessary". Otherwise, why cite the Declaration in order to make a point that the subsequent Constitution INADEQUATELY addressed – ie, how to "limit federal power" if the Federal government, the courts, and many/most states refuse to make it happen? What makes him think a mob of delegates can do any better than Congress – representing those people – to come up with a simple one, like for example, the nearly-ratified Equal Rights Amendment (for women)? On that latter, I suppose Mr. Baldwin was opposed to the ERA simply based on his argumentation AGAINST Congress proposing amendments as a solution. Amendments SHOULD be about increasing rights, not limiting government. Again, the Federal Constitution already does the latter. An amendment won't make them any better at it – just as we see how assiduously they follow their own ethics and other House and Senate rules!

  13. The current constitution certainly does limit the power of the Federal government. However, over the years the constitution has been slowly redefined so that the limits originally put in place are no longer effective. A case in point is Obamacare. The Supreme Court ruled that since it is a tax, it is constitutional. A Federal Government with an unlimited power to tax is not really limited at all. For instance, a CEO of a company could take a stand on political issues that upsets people in power. If they then decided to not allow that company to have a permit and that was determined to be a tax and therefore legal we would essentially have allowed the government away around the right of free speech. You can speak as much as you want, but you will pay the consequences.

    It is this kind of power that we must limit from the government. How we go about doing that is what we are discussing. There are only a couple of ways that this level of Federal power can be limited because it involves the constitution. (1) A constitutional amendment. (2) A constitutional convention.
    A constitutional amendment involves getting our representatives in Washington to do the right thing. Just for the sake of argument, my senators are Jeff Flake and John McCain. This would also take the House to do this, but in order to keep the analysis simple consideration will be for these two. So the question is which is more likely to yield the restrictions needed — These senators, who have worked their way up in politics, or officials elected at the state level?

    Jeff Flake has been an ardent worker for limiting government for many years, but since he has become a senator, his decisions are arguably moving in the opposite direction. Before he became a senator he would have been my top choice for limiting Federal powers. Now I am no longer sure.

    John McCain is supposed to be the "Maverick", and is still very active in exposing and limiting pork. However, when it comes to real limits on Federal powers, he would not be good choice, his track record in this regard is not good.

    For me this is the real issue. If I can't count on my senators to get the job done, the house is a mute point anyway.

    The constitutional convention's delegates would be chosen from elected officials at the state level. At this level of government, these people are representing far fewer people than senators, and do not have a much to loose in limiting Federal powers and far more to loose with increasing Federal powers. I met with and talked to Jeff Flake when he was at the state level. My opportunity to meet with him now is much diminished since he represents more people and spends more time in Washington.

    The same thing applies to everyone else. State politicians are much more likely to restrict Federal powers than Federal politicians. A constitutional convention would give us that opportunity.

  14. atandb has missed my point, at least… I am asserting that an Article V Con-Con is NOT the only viable alternative. It may well be the complete un-doing of the beacon on the hill… Consider: France did just that when the peasants arose and stormed the Bastille, unleashing all manner of tyrants and despots to do their wills, from building and using guillotines to conducting witch and other hunts for traitors, kangaroo courts. That "model" of incivility changed Jefferson from his former position as a "revolution every generation" type to one of more cautious consideration, changing as it did his animosity for the likes of John Adams and other "elitists"…

    Both Tim "the only viable alternative is a Con-con" Baldwin and those who have not considered spending as much time lobbying their congress critters keep pushing the notion (no intent to imply ulterior motive here, Tim) that Article V convention, being in THEIR minds the only viable alternative to bet Congress back on the limited track, is all there is to Article V. Congress may also propose, the President sign, and the states ratify. I think it is more likely this latter will be tried, before we "march on Washington" (or whatever city some group of elitists think ought to host a Con-con) as "the only viable alternative" to bring Congress/the President/and the Courts "to heel". Look at what is happening where "the people" ARE using the "people's method" of open rebellion. Death and mayhem, and NO CERTAINTY of success in changing anything except the population by the number of deaths.
    Questions: 1 – who decides how many delegates? If we are NOT using the state legislature method in Article V, then who decides? 2 – where will it be? 3 – how many "interest groups" will be allowed and WHO decides which ones are and which ones are not?
    Tim and others have not answered these important, logistical questions, while promoting essentially MOB RULE to wreck the Constitution as it is now, and do what? Throw off that government that does not represent us. But, the begged question: what will we have after the blood and dust have settled under the tree of liberty? WHO will we place in charge of the newly written constitution? Will it have bill of rights? Will it actually have "restored limited federal power"?

  15. My point, erroneously stated, is that the US Constitution does NOT limit the number of delegates, nor what or who they represent, other than "state legislature". How effective you think THAT will be in California or Massatwoshits?

  16. Jim wrote a lot of words to simply state, the Constitution already limits the federal government; therefore, we only need to "enforce" it. Jim also premises his position on this: "Look at what is happening where 'the people' ARE using the 'people’s method' of open rebellion. Death and mayhem, and NO CERTAINTY of success in changing anything except the population by the number of deaths." In other words, Jim thinks America will kill itself through Article V. Is Jim's position reality? No.

    I believe Jim's perspective is distorted by not understanding the nature of a constitution and political philosophy itself. For example, Jim further premises his opposition Article V on this: "Amendments SHOULD be about increasing rights, not limiting government." This displays a bit of confusion or ignorance on what constitutions are and the power of the people to change them for their benefit.

    Jim, first, supposes that limiting government does not increase rights. He states that we are to "increase rights" and not "limit the government" through amendments. In reality, the two are effectively synonymous. When government has less power, the people have more rights. This is political philosophy 101.

    Second, he would limit the people's ability and right to do to the Constitution what they deem necessary to protect their rights. Why are you limiting the people to amending the Constitution ONLY to "increase rights"? How are the people's rights not benefited and increased by limiting government power?

    The Bill of Rights limits government, and perhaps more relevant to the need of an Article V convention, the eleventh amendment was used to clarify federal court decisions that involved the States' sovereignty relative to civil lawsuits.

    The 11th amendment says, "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Notice, this power did not increase rights: rather, it clarified/limited the judicial power regarding state sovereignty in civil suits. They added this amendment based on the federal court decisions that undermined their sovereignty in this regard. They did what the Federalists said the States should do when the judiciary distorts the constitution: fix it through amendment.

    Article V's purpose can be used to do the same thing regarding long-held federal judiciary decisions on the commerce and tax power. And it should if you care to restore the balanced structure of the federal system.

    This has to be answered: which "version" of the Constitution exists in reality today?–the one that supposedly limits the federal government sufficiently to give real meaning to the Ninth and Tenth Amendment or the one that says Congress can "regulate in all matters whatsoever"? The answer is obvious, as Jim would admit.

    Therefore, there is one logical conclusion: if the people and States are going to reclaim the power of the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to limit the federal government, which has been lost through the interpretation and application of the Commerce and Tax power, they must redefine where the US S CT has erred. The only other alternative is for the US S CT to correct the Jurisprudence they created over 200+ years.

    Of these two choices, which is the most likely and timely solution? The answer is obvious. The notable constitutional scholar, Rob Natelson, agrees with me on this point and is also promoting an Article V convention–but I guess since he is an attorney, he is "out to fix the legal system for his advantage," right?

    Yes, other methods of restoring liberty must be used. I have written many articles on this, even in this article series. (See parts 1-7.) But the reality of changing Jurisprudence rests in the two options I mentioned above. Congress does not change rules of law by the US S CT, and Congress changes hands so frequently that the struggle of which version of the Constitution should prevail will never be settled through normal political process.

    Again, the basis of the opposition to Article V is that these opponents do not trust the people and the delegates they would choose for the SPECIFIC purpose of constitutional amendments. To Jim, this would result in MAYHEM and DEATH. Wow! These opponents have already given up on the nation and States by denying their ability to change the present and future by the only grand method that is available to amend, alter or abolish 200+ years of court decisions that have (re)defined the Constitution to what it is today.

    What other method then can there be to resolve any constitutional problems we face? Voting? You do not accept such a remedy to change our direction, and you reveal this by stating our only remedy will be the second amendment, meaning, outright, blood-shedding revolution.

    This alone should wake up any person considering the topic and the position of those who oppose an Article V convention. This alone should show us that, in reality, opponents of the Article V convention have no faith in the people, have no desire to fight for constitutional governance through the proper and peaceful methods, and would rather we refuse to know that the Constitution as they would prefer it to be no longer exists and will not again until Article V is used.

    How ludicrous it is to sit and wait for violence when we have an opportunity to change our direction fundamentally that will last for generations to come and to restore liberty peacefully.

    If, however, "revolution" is inevitable and we must resort to the second amendment to "restore liberty", whether or not we have an Article V convention, what good have you offered by doing nothing and simply waiting for a violent crash?

    Ironically, such a condition WILL REQUIRE a constitutional convention regardless of the opponents desire not to have one. How can there be an internal revolution without a constitutional convention?–whether by all or part of the States.

    Are we to presume that, given the description of our utter depravity as a people by Article V opponents, the second amendment will be the end of our restoring liberty or that after such a revolution and the use of arms that there will not be an outcry of the people to amend the Constitution and our political associations to correct the harms that millions of people will suffer under that scenario?

    This shows that the States must use the opportunities now to accomplish their goals peacefully.

  17. Tim's opening salvo at my comments betrays his arrogance. I never said that America *(the USA) "will kill itself through Article V". Where Tim???
    I said look at the world today where the people, using the arguments for balkanism to divide themselves up, armed by the US and other nations, against their "lawful governers", are killing themselves and risking what they sought in the first place: liberty AND limited power vested in government. Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's hood, steps into the void and takes power, then MAY being the slaughter of Christians and anyone else who may object.
    Secondly, Tim is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT that "Article V" applies, but he is not convincing that a Constitutional Convention is the "more likely viable option" (paraphrasing). And THAT is the point on which we all seem bent on disagreeing. Article V IS the place to LOOK for Constitutional legitimacy (law), but a Constitutional Convention has never been tried, while we have some dozen and a half amendments that came from Congress (among a larger crop of which some were never ratified by the states – ERA, for example).
    Tim argues straw men when he pits the Con-con against Congressionally sent amendments, because he has no IDEA whether or not Congress can gets its collective as-sets together and pass a "federal power limit" amendment to the states. They've never done it. But, Tim assumes they cannot, and asserts so with every word he writes (and he DOES write many!) when he promotes a Con-con, but masquerades it as "Article V Convention" – there is not such Article, so named, and he knows it. A convention, while one method mentioned within Art.V is NOT the only method of Art.V.
    Apparently, Tim like others who support a Con-con, are going to argue us to boredom and then declare themselves winners by default. We, some of the people of the State of Montana, are not so stupid as to let ONE person who claims to want representative government, "win by default" so as to open OUR Constitution (and likely Montana's when all is said and done) to the forces that have been striving to destroy the US since the beginning, on through the union organizing and then Marxian "dialectic" (my way or the highway). He knows what I mean and he is glib if he intends to continue debating HOW we say things and not stick to the issue: IS a Constitutional Convention limited in its scope by the US Constitution (Article V), or is it not?
    Tim Baldwin owes us an explanation of why HE thinks it is limited, and then cite the Article and Section that can so limit such a convention. He cannot, so he persists in being insulting to the rest of us by arguing our points because he does not agree with them.
    Cite the Article and Section Tim. Or drop the push for a Con-con. WE who are opposed to your position do not trust that it will not be a free-for-all. AND, you have cited the Declaration of Independence now TWICE, while at least once ridiculing me for mentioning that you did. Dissolve the government to YOU means scrap any and up to every thing in the CONSTITUTION. The constitutions are NOT the governments.

  18. All of us should go here: http://www.callaconvention.org/ and look at a menu item on the right: "Propose an Amendment"
    This while calling for a Con-con.

    Ask: How many predominantly "socialist leaning" states are on the list of those whose legislatures want a Con-con. There are even folks in MANY states calling to abolish the Second Amendment, and that is ONLY one of many ideas that are – and most certainly WILL – be "on the table" at a convention of cats whose disparate delegates will be seen running in 50 different directions on most "proposed amendments".

    I still want Tim Baldwin and all those calling to "Propose an Amendment" (so that the state can better convince itself to vote to have a Con-con) to tell me how such a Con-con, with potentially HUNDREDS of amendments being proposed (BECAUSE there is NO limit in Article V)… just exactly HOW is Tim going to ensure that the ONLY amendment proposed and passed will be a "limit the federal power"?

    Again, we already have limited federal power. It is called the US Constitution, and it is up to the STATES to challenge, in the US Supreme Court, EVERY Congressional, Presidential AND Judicial violation of that document.

    We do NOT need a Constitutional Convention to force limits on the Federales. Article I already does that, and there has been NO amendment expanding their powers.

  19. Tim Baldwin states:
    "Therefore, there is one logical conclusion: if the people and States are going to reclaim the power of the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to limit the federal government, which has been lost through the interpretation and application of the Commerce and Tax power, they must redefine where the US S CT has erred. The only other alternative is for the US S CT to correct the Jurisprudence they created over 200+ years.

    "Of these two choices, which is the most likely and timely solution? The answer is obvious. The notable constitutional scholar, Rob Natelson, agrees with me on this point and is also promoting an Article V convention–but I guess since he is an attorney, he is “out to fix the legal system for his advantage,” right?"

    Don't be so stupid, Tim. No one has asserted that – at least not seriously on THIS forum. Secondly, so you would use Natelson as the "notable constitutional scholar" against two hundred plus years filled with such as he who have vehemently opposed a Con-con BECAUSE it is not constitutionally limited to what can or may not, be changed by the Con-con – including, as they rightly fear, the Constitution itself, WITHOUT WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS NON-EXISTENT in its current or former "form". The US is a creature of the Constitution; not the other way around. Natelson and Tim seem to think the Constitution is a malleable document that may be taken apart and somehow miraculously put together again – like humpty dumpty – just because they "believe it", or because they assume that the people "should want to do so".
    The proof of THEIR argument is the vehemence of those with far more wisdom than the two combined, for over 2 centuries, including through today, who do not agree with them. History speaks to such folly. But, apparently Tim and Rob think they can – with the wave of a hand to banish me and others who do not agree with them – change human nature, and get lions to lie down with lambs and not attempt to have the latter for dinner.
    It ain't happened before. What makes them think it will this time? There are, as I have previously noted, too many interest groups out to take away MY rights and I will not stand by and let that happen. If it means, ultimately, having to resort to the Second Amendment, then simply recall Lexington and Concord and the ensuing TWO wars with Britain (actually one, from 1765 to 1814) and the un-Civil War (War of Northern Aggression) that refused to allow what Rob and Tim promote: the right of the people to decide what powers the Feds may have. Sherman was no saint, and we have no security that there are not many like him today, just waiting to burn us out, to the sea…
    Paranoia is nature's way of dealing with potential predators that seek to eat us.

  20. Jim offers no point-by-point rebuttal to my points. Presumably then, he cannot. Plainly, he offers NO analysis regarding the reality of what Jurisprudence is and how his method of redress is going to "restore the Constitution." As such, I will simply respond to his comments, because they add no substance to his position but are based on hollow theories, most of which are conspiracy theories, similar to the kind that the United States is a "corporation and that is why they politicians don't follow the Constitution" and the like. They are conjured up for the sake of creating something that never will be.

    Jim's political philosophy is founded in something other than political ideas as understood by the Founding generation. His statements conflict so much with what they articulated about what a federal and state constitution is and the powers of the people. It is extremely difficult to rebut such misunderstandings in this forum, but I will attempt to shed some light to the many fallacies he reveals in his own thinking, which is perhaps the same fallacies many who oppose Article V hold.

    First, Jim wants to have it both ways. He wants to cite "the world" (saying, “I said look at the world today where the people, using the arguments for balkanism to divide themselves up, armed by the US and other nations, against their “lawful governers”, are killing themselves and risking what they sought in the first place") as an example of why an Article V convention should be opposed, but then declaims my recital of his statement that an "Article V convention will kill America," which of course shows that he DOES NOT trust the American people and the States. No other conclusion can come from his using "the world's MAYHEM and DEATH" except to say that America will do the same, yes, showing he does not trust the States to limit the federal government through convention. Why use "the world" as the comparative for illustration but deny at the same time the conclusion that results from that comparison? This makes no sense.

    Second, Jim claims as a reason not to use Article V, the "Muslim Brotherhood, Obama’s hood, steps into the void and takes power, then MAY being the slaughter of Christians and anyone else who may object." This is baseless theory and appeals to conspiracies and fears more than anything. In reality, the States are resisting the federal government more than ever today. Montana's own laws prove this as well. Jim presumes the States are a bunch of sheep ready to be led to the slaughter and that Article V is the venue for that slaughter and have no desire to be freed from the lion’s teeth. He uses fear as a reason to oppose a good and necessary idea–a method the Founders proclaimed the people should use to correct Jurisprudence.

    Third, Jim asserts an argument I have answered in the original article. Jim claims that an article V convention cannot be limited. I say, so what? To Jim, this means that we would lose the Constitution altogether. He is wrong. Jim regurgitates the John Birch Society rationale to oppose using Article V. I already addressed this argument in the original article (JBS does not trust the States to restore liberty.) The reason a “runaway convention” is not to be feared is that even if the delegates decide to create a new constitution, those who ratify the new constitution secede from the Constitution and go their own way; those who do not ratify the proposed constitution will remain under the Constitution able to determine a new direction based upon a new makeup of the union of "conservative" states. This is what was proposed in the new plan in 1787, and it was what the Anti-Federalists suggested should be the case from the beginning. That is, there should be more than one union in America. Jim apparently feels this kind of self-government is evil and thinks that the non-ratifying states would be as lambs led to the slaughter (as he expresses below).

    Fourth, Jim claims that "Tim like others who support a Con-con, are going to argue us to boredom and then declare themselves winners by default." This makes no sense. Who is declaring whom the winner or loser? Arguing a position requires people to take sides and exclude others. If this is "declaring winners," then Jim declares himself the winner equally.

    In the same sentence, Jim claims my articles and comments are "boring," yet he has dedicated hours to respond to my observations and reasons for using Article V. Emotions are getting the best of his points, similar to when Jim mistakes argument for arrogance. If this is boring, then I presume reading the Federalist Papers is equally boring and not necessary to understanding our political and constitutional makeup. I would ask Jim if he has even read the entire Federalists Papers, much more actually study the philosophy and practice explained in those papers. I suppose that the Constitution is "so plain" as not to need any additional effort to understand its export and long-term application, right? But looking at the evidence of what is “boring” (i.e. the number of views on this point), my article and comments are not boring at all, but interesting and necessary to discuss.

    Fifth, Jim's real point of reference comes to light. Jim states that Article V "open[s] OUR Constitution (and likely Montana’s when all is said and done) to the forces that have been striving to destroy the US since the beginning, on through the union organizing and then Marxian “dialectic” (my way or the highway)." I need not address his unexplained statements about dialectics. Simply put, Jim reveals that he believes there is and has been a conspiracy to destroy liberty and America "since the beginning" of the union. What is he talking about? Who is he talking about? Which laws or constitutional provisions were passed as a “conspiracy from the beginning”? Throwing such a bomb without any support or rationale shows that Jim’s only purpose is to incite emotional responses to this critical topic, perhaps steering the minds of some who are geared towards that mindset.
    His theories of paranoia are more influential in his reasons against an Article V convention than are realities, philosophy and science. Creating ghosts for Americans to run from is an easy way to explain why we shouldn't use the inherent power we have to self-govern. Again, Jim explains in no way the realities of how Jurisprudence is developed in a constitutional system and how the people correct it. He would rather conspire about how everyone is out to get us than advance logic and reason, which should control our direction and responses.

    Sixth, revealing his distrust of the American people and States, Jim wants me to guarantee that an Article V convention will not turn into a full-fledged "con con." I already addressed this in my original article and responses to his comments. There is no guarantee of such a thing, just as 1787 reveals. But as 1787 also reveals, proposing a new constitution gives the non-ratifying states a chance of a new direction by virtue of the "socialist states" separating themselves from the political union–thereby alleviating the republican, capitalist states of that influence. So, regardless of a limited or unlimited convention, the subject still needs to be discussed, so no, I will not "drop the push" simply because some people cannot imagine being put in a position of having, once again, to argue reason and political science to convince others that certain amendments are good or bad.

    Seventh, Jim then states, "you have cited the Declaration of Independence now TWICE, while at least once ridiculing me for mentioning that you did. Dissolve the government to YOU means scrap any and up to every thing in the CONSTITUTION. The constitutions are NOT the governments." Jim alters his own position stated in his first comment. Jim stated earlier that he "did NOT see what Tim sees in the Declaration." Jim states that "Throwing out a government means to remove those sitting and replace them; it does not, per se, mean replacing the Constitution." I told Jim he is absolutely wrong on this fundamental principle, which shows his other principles are very skewed.
    Jim thinks that the Declaration of Independence does not state that the people have the power to alter or amend constitutions. This again reveals that Jim has a very limited knowledge of political philosophy and science. I now wonder if he has studied John Locke, Emer de Vattel, Samuel Pufendorf, Algernon Sidney, Charles Montesquieu and the like who created the political philosophy of 1787. If he has and understands it, then he rejects it, because they, along with our Founders, believed that the people have the inherent right to alter or abolish their constitutions, which means creating entirely new ones if necessary.
    Eighth, Jim then uses a very circular reasoning to explain his position. He states, "we already have limited federal power. It is called the US Constitution, and it is up to the STATES to challenge, in the US Supreme Court, EVERY Congressional, Presidential AND Judicial violation of that document." I have already shown how arguing "we need not amend, but only 'get back' to the Constitution" is a fallacious argument. Jim's response to the hundreds and thousands of cases that have formed our Jurisprudence is simply, "look at the Constitution." Well, the Courts HAVE looked at the Constitution and explained it. Does Jim not see this? These Courts have created, by looking at the Constitution, what Jim declares is the problem.

    Then Jim completes his circle by saying that for the States to "get back to the Constitution" they should take cases to the US S CT for "every violation of that document." What do you think has happened since 1791? How many federal cases does one have to read to KNOW what the federal courts have declared regarding the Commerce and Tax Power? How do you think Courts make these determinations about our Constitution except to decipher meaning from its words and create Jurisprudence based on their interpretations of it? Through this Judicial Power, the Constitution, which Jim says exists, does NOT exist at all. Jim is full of erroneous belief to claim all we have to do is take more cases to federal court. How many more decades must pass before Jim's "idea" of the Constitution revives and we rid ourselves of the “conspirators from the beginning”? I think by that time, Jim's predicted revolution will have occurred. But perhaps Jim and the like prefer this remedy over use of debate and reason—and the use of our States to remedies problems only they can remedy.

    Ninth, Jim appeals to the wisdom of "the People" to support his argument that Article V should be opposed–the same people he claims are unworthy of trust in an Article V convention. He says, in his attack on me and Rob Natelson, "the proof of THEIR argument is the vehemence of those with far more wisdom than the two combined, for over 2 centuries, including through today, who do not agree with them” (as if Tim Baldwin and Rob Natelson are the only people advocating the use of Article V—clearly not the case.) Jim cannot have it both ways. You cannot state that the wisdom of the people solidifies the reason to oppose Article V convention and then state that the people would ruin the Constitution in an Article V convention. If they have such wisdom to avoid Article V, would those same people not realize what amendments are needed to rollback federal power? Jim only shows his bias by exalting the "wisdom" of the people that rejected Article V because it supports his position and demeaning the ignorance of the people should they decide Article V is necessary.

    Jim continues, "apparently Tim and Rob think they can – with the wave of a hand to banish me and others who do not agree with them – change human nature, and get lions to lie down with lambs and not attempt to have the latter for dinner." Again, Jim reveals his view of the American spirit and views of liberty. Jim thinks that Article V will, in fact, lead us to slaughter, even though he denies it in his first statement as I showed above. Jim sees "those people" as lions and "his people" as lambs, though he never defines or identifies them. Jim claims that Article V is the lion's den in which the lambs will be tossed for slaughter and death.

    Again, Jim's appeal to "the world" in this realm is exactly what he predicts would happen in an Article V convention. Jim would "play it safe" by sticking with a constitution that does not even exist. Jim believes that the federal judiciary is less of a lion's den than the people's delegates. That is not reality. Jim chooses the greater of two evils when it comes to choosing Article V or the federal judiciary. Jim believes that the federal judiciary has good faith in restoring our Constitution, but the people and their chosen delegates are nothing but ravenous beasts. Jim completely flips on its head the philosophy of the Founders that created the Constitution, which rested in the reality that the people could be trusted to self-govern and check federal power.
    Jim proposes a new philosophy: the federal judiciary is preferred over the people’s delegates. Under his theory, aristocracies and monarchies are preferred over democracies and republics. But one would need to read works like the Federalist Papers and other works of philosophy to understand how political forms are created and why. Jim makes mention of “Tim’s destroying Montana” through Article V when he is the one who denies the reality of Article 2 of the Montana Constitution, that the people are the source of political power and “may alter or abolish the constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary.”

    Jim may claim he is for liberty for humans, but his theories show that he believes in a much less flattering view of human nature. If Jim’s view of Americans and “the world” is correct, then he would recognize what other political philosophers have stated: that the less humans are capable of self-governing, the more suited they are for slavery. Under Jim’s view then, America is, in fact, suited for slavery, which presumably is why he expects America to go down in a blaze of revolutionary glory, but of course, he offers nothing to show how after such an event liberty will be restored through the use of brute force. I do not hold such a view of Americans or human nature, which is why I propose Americans begin looking seriously at Article V to control the federal government.

    Lastly, Jim reveals his vision of "restoring liberty" through physical violence and revolution. He said, "If it means, ultimately, having to resort to the Second Amendment, then simply recall Lexington and Concord and the ensuing TWO wars with Britain (actually one, from 1765 to 1814)." Jim's comparing the States today to the colonies of 1776 is a poor analogy on this topic. Then, Jim cites the "un-Civil War (War of Northern Aggression)" to illustrate the reason Article V would not work. He states that since the federal government "refused to allow what Rob and Tim promote: the right of the people to decide what powers the Feds may have," that “they” (the conspirators, presumably) will do the same in this case. This comparison is full of errors on many levels. I will mark an obvious and serious one.

    The Southern States did not use Article V to secede. They used individual acts of the State legislators to remove them from the union—without expressed authority of the people. This was not the direct act of the people, as was the 1787 convention. Had the States used Article V at that time, the States could have proposed a new constitution to create a new union, just as they did in 1787, or they could have proposed amendments to the Constitution as to which States were to be parties to the Constitution (viz a via, which states were going to secede, which they did in 1787.) The Southern States did not use these legitimate and constitutional methods.

    Abraham Lincoln recognized this truth in his First Inaugural Address. He stated,

    "Whenever [the people] shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended.

    "While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it."

    Lincoln continued,

    "I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse.

    "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

    Plainly stated here (as he did in other parts of the same address), Lincoln knew that amending the Constitution was an essential part of changing the government. He knew that were the States to use this method of redressing their grievances, there would be nothing the federal government could do to stop the States. He acknowledged that there was a proposed amendment of the States to limit the federal government from interfering in their internal matters, again showing that, just as the Eleventh Amendment does, amendments are very useful and viable to limiting government action and power. Lincoln acknowledged that those amendments would work for that purpose. Instead, the States ignored this method, and as a result, they got a war to subdue their attempts of unilateral secession, which was of course predicted by Hamilton and Madison in the Federalist Papers.

    Jim and those who hold his views miss SO much of political and constitutional reality and are operating under myths that circulate in the "liberty movement," which in effect causes the movement not to gain momentum. These kinds of mystics are what keep a people burdened by establishment or tradition and reject what the founding generation knew was necessary to effectuate the principles announced in the Declaration of Independence. They are like Tory conservatives in 1776 who argued against independence from Great Britain because, as they said in that day, "Great Britain had the best constitution the world had ever known,” all the while Jurisprudence made meaningful redress under that "greatest constitution" impossible.
    True patriots of liberty in 1776 and 1787 rejected the mystics of caution. They rejected appeals to fear for not doing what they knew they could and should be doing. They rejected the idea that since they could not predict or guarantee the details of results that they should abandon and reject the general ideas. True patriots today should reject mystics and fear-driven philosophy and should apply the sound rules of political and constitutional reason.

  21. Tim states: "Second, Jim claims as a reason not to use Article V, the “Muslim Brotherhood, Obama’s hood, steps into the void and takes power, then MAY being the slaughter of Christians and anyone else who may object.” This is baseless theory and appeals to conspiracies …"

    No Tim. This is exactly what is happening in the Middle East, armed and abetted by Obama. I am not predicting the same will happen here. I am citing historical facts. Not speculating.

    Speaking of who uses "a lot of words" to essentially say little, look at your own not-so-subtle-overly-long writings above. I suppose, based on all that, I must therefore post the off-site portion of the email I sent to Tim yesterday in which someone far wiser than I or Tim wrote last year about why a Con-con is not possibly limited by anyone. The bottom line, as I stated above, is that there are NO provisions in the US Constitution to limit a Con-con.

    And Tim has been misleading us that the "state legislatures" will somehow be in a position to do anything. There is NO provision specifying that state legislatures call CONTROL a Constitutional convention. AND he further misleads that the states make the rules. The Congress is bound by no such rules "before the fact" (of a Con-con), and in fact it is CONGRESS that makes the rules AFTER the convention is called, and the states (and hence THE very people Tim is trying to hoodwink here) will have ZERO, ZIP, NADA to say about ANY aspect of the Con-con. It will be OUT OF CONTROL of the very people Tim and Natelson are trying to convince WOULD be under our control.

    Face it Tim. You got on the wrong boat. Once it sails, YOU as well will have no power to "limit" where it travels. Just as when the 1787 delegates were held behind closed doors in a committee of the whole, abandoned ship and sailed their boat (the Articles of Confederation) over the waterfall in favor of a completely new constitution, already pretty much written by Madison. Just as many groups have already written our NewStates Constitution, with no rights and only 8 regions that will dictate whatever the one-worlders want.

  22. As for Tim's continued use of the Declaration of Independence, I would remind him that it is NOT the governing document of ANY nation, anywhere on earth. It is philosophical underpinning for OUR ruling document, the US Constitution with all its limits (Article 1) and the original Bill of Rights, still intact, though for some reason Tim and others seem to think it has been re-written. It has not. It may be abused by those in power, but it is still the same words that the Founders intended, including the intended meanings of those words, despite the revisionists' hopes and false statements alluding to "redefined" terms. The Constitution's "original meanings" of its words are still intact. Look in any dictionary and those meanings still exist. That others choose to use a meaning that is "modern, and up to date in Kansas City" does not alter its meaning at the time it was written, and per the Constitution, as those words STILL mean. Again, nothing in either the Declaration to give us the right or power to dissolve the Constitution, nor anything in the Constitution that gives anyone the right or power to control a Con-con once it is convened; and there is NO provision for a "limited amendment convention". Thus, also, we see many groups of leftists and rightists throwing up web site advocating that we all "propose an amendment" to our legislatures – again hood-winking those who fall for that gambit, that a Con-con will be "amendment limited". Tim knows I am right, and he does a disservice to us all – despite his MANY 1,000s of words above to the contrary in which he thinks HE knows what we, the people "need" to make Congress heel. We already have – it is called the state legislatures, and they most surely CAN ignore the carrot on the Federal stick if they so choose. Without having to invent some phony arguments for a Con-con to get Congress to back down.

    As for the court history. No mandate from any court is "law of the land" if it is not compliant with limits imposed on the states ("prohibited to the states") or "powers delegated to Congress". State legislatures are the final arbiters, acting FOR the people. We do not need a wholly new body of "delegates" who will NOT represent any but political parties and special interests to "re-make" ANY part of our history or the Constitution.

  23. An interesting debater's method is to make many statements then challenge opponents to refute each and every one. I will not fall for that Tim. The debate is Con-con or Congress method of proposing amendments. We should use the one that has a history of success [both in terms of "wanted" or "needed", as well as unwanted and unneeded], not the one that failed the only time it was used. IN FACT, the Founders themselves were opposed to the Legislative approach for the very reasons others and I have stated. We stand by our arguments and do not need tomes of verbiage, repeated over and over and over, to convince us otherwise. We do not need to refute every word you have written, because the bandwidth of polymontana is unlikely to contain all that would require.

    We've stated our reasons for opposition, if you'd care to re-read what we've written. Apparently, having gotten NO support here at polymontana, other than by way of a free forum for your views, Tim, you choose to continue to browbeat as the typical attorney method. I would object if this were a court of law – as I am sure you would too, were it being done to you. Thanks but no thanks. Your reasoning is flawed by "hope". Ours is supported by documents, including many passed amendments, none of which to my knowledge were denigrating of rights, and some of which did as I say amendments should do, expanding rights to others (18 year olds for example being now able to vote; repeal of prohibition).

  24. As I stated above, I do not need to "refute" or otherwise "argue" point by point with Tim or anyone else on this. Instead, I urge everyone – including Tim – to read this, written last year, possibly recently updated:
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/concon2

    EVERY argument made by Tim Baldwin and Rob Natelson are well-refuted within this heavily referenced piece, including the history of the Con Con movement (as I first noted, a double con).

    Recall the Trojans, and the adage, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts"…

  25. @25 Jim, Thanks for the link. Since it is not a copyrighted article, I will add it to PolyMontana … to assure it does not disappear and so we can discuss it in detail. Here it is: Constitutional Convention: A Gridlock of Fact and Fiction.

  26. The Hegelian Principle
    #1, Create a problem, #2, generate opposition to the problem, #3 Offer a solution to the problem created in the first step. The Federal government trying to gain more power creates most of Americas problems. Letter to the Editor on State Sovereignty:

    Every Country in the world, is controlled by one central government, except the United States. Our Founding Fathers created Sovereign States, each State had it"s own Constitution. The Federal Constitution was written to control the federal government and they do not like their hands bound my the Constitution. The goal of the federal government is to try to control of the states. The 10 Amendment forbids this, but they keep on trying.

    Question: Why are the States allowing the feds to take total control of our Republic?

    Local governments were created to do the things that individuals cannot do for themselves. State governments should do only the things that local governments cannot do for themselves, and the federal government should do those things that individual states cannot do for themselves. Local governments and state governments created the federal government.

    The Federal Government was formed to protect the sovereign States, it had a job to do, as outlined by Article One of the Constitution. Pres. Wilson, hated the Constitution, he tried to eliminate State Sovereignty, their tools were the 14, 16,17, and the 19 Amendments. Presidents like Roosevelt, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Bush and now Obama are doing their best to eliminate State Sovereignty.

    We must elect Governors that will fight the feds from intruding on the 10 Amendment and state sovereignty. These are good reasons to repeal the 14th,16th, 17th Amendments. The 14th Amend: turn all Americans into federal citizens.

    The 17th Amend: Federal Senators before the 17 Amend were elected by the legislators of their State and they represented the State. Senators are now elected by the people of the State. Now since all American people are federal citizens, Senators going back to Washington DC, they no longer represent the State, they represent the people. On the State level, Senators were appointed by the Counties, at one time. It makes sense because in State government the House Represented the people, the Senate represented the counties. This was a good way to stop the welfare state. The people wanted everything for free, and they would vote for politicians who would give them that welfare, it was the job of the Senate to say NO.

  27. Here's what Mark Levin said in his interview with CNS News:

    Mark Levin: States Should Call Convention to Propose Amending Constitution

    Jeffrey: One last idea you put out, Mark, I want to talk about here: Under Article V, the state legislatures can vote to call a national convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, but in your set of amendments you suggest even liberalizing that policy a little bit. Explain that.

    Levin: Yes, because it’s enormously difficult. Believe it or not, in 1963, Dwight Eisenhower gave a speech, a commencement speech, at a college–the college was actually called Defiance College–and he said to the young people there: You know there’s a provision in the Constitution that you the people can use to control what’s going on in Washington. Because looking back, he was fed up with what the Kennedy administration had done, he was fed up with the Warren court. And he said: How do we address this? And he specifically cited the second amendment process in Article V—no radical, Dwight Eisenhower. And he encouraged the people of the nation to use it.

    Ronald Reagan referred to the same thing several times during his presidency because he could not get Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment and he kept threatening them that the people might rise up one day and impose it on you. I think it is time that we grow this movement, that we breathe life into this movement, that we start having a discussion about this.

    There can be no runaway convention because three-fourths of the states still need to ratify. But we need to make it clear to the people in Washington we do have a way out. There is a way forward. The states collectively, pressured by we the people, have enormous power–for the very reason the Framers of the Constitution said two days before the end of the Constitutional Convention. That’s when they adopted this. James Madison predicted we would have an oppressive federal government, Congress would not pass amendments to control it, and we the people, he said, have to have a course short of violence, short of revolution, to address an oppressive government. He was right. This is it.

    Jeffrey: And you believe this is it. This is the answer to another revolution. It’s a peaceful, constitutional, legislative revolution, driven from the grassroots up by the people.

    Levin: I would say this: If there’s another idea, I’m certainly open to it. But this is not a revolution. What’s happened is a counterrevolution to the American Revolution, which is what we’re living under today. This is embracing the Constitution, following a constitutional process, following a civil, legitimate process whereas our opponents try on everything they can to nullify and undermine the Constitution of the United States. We need to make this clear: We’ve got to get our language right. We’ve got to get our mindset right. We need to spread the word.

    Jeffrey: Mark Levin, author of The Liberty Amendments, thank you very much.

    Levin: God bless you. Thank you, Terry.

  28. Jim thinks that Christians will be slaughtered in America because they are in the Middle East if we use Article V to change the direction of our States. Wow.

    Jim states that I am misleading people about the state legislatures being able to control the convention. I never said that. When I say, "the states," I am referring to the delegates the people choose to go to a convention to propose amendments.

    Jim then states I am misleading people to think the "the states make the rules" of the convention. I never said that. The delegates will make their own rules. To Jim, this is "scary" because he thinks they will propose a new constitution, as they did in 1787. I have answered this scenario many times, but it is Jim's main point, so here it goes again.

    If the state delegates in the convention propose a new constitution, it is only a recommendation. Whatever threshold number they decide will be required to ratify the new constitution, assuming that number of states ratify the new constitution to make it valid, the non-ratifying states will remain in union under the Constitution. Do you honestly think that ALL the States will ratify a constitution that is worse than the situation we are in? No, they will not. So, if this happens, the non-ratifying States will be able to change their direction by virtue of the political association being more conservative in nature.

    Jim think that a convention "will be OUT OF CONTROL of the very people Tim and Natelson are trying to convince WOULD be under our control." If "Tim and Natleson" are presuming anything, then so is Jim, because he can no more predict how the delegates would act than anyone else. But I have covered what happens in either scenario: whether the delegates simply propose manageable amendments or they propose a new constitution. Still, the point is, Jim offers NOTHING better to change our Jurisprudence, so what good is accomplished by acting out of fear of the unknown? What we know is there is fundamental change needed, and that cannot be accomplished through Jim's method. It can only come by the people in a convention.
    Jim think I "got on the wrong boat." The anti-federalists thought the same thing about the Federalists, but in the end, the people saw the need to free themselves from a constitutional system causing their demise.

    Jim again alludes to the delegates ability to propose a new constitution. He says, "Once it sails, YOU as well will have no power to 'limit' where it travels." Jim implies again that he does not trust the people and their delegates to make decisions to improve our condition. I do not agree with Jim's view of the American people.

    Jim then implies that the delegates the people sent to convention in 1787 were designing a system to enslave us through the new proposed plan. Jim says, "Just as when the 1787 delegates were held behind closed doors in a committee of the whole, abandoned ship and sailed their boat (the Articles of Confederation) over the waterfall in favor of a completely new constitution, already pretty much written by Madison." So, is Jim implying that the constitution they created in 1787 was designed to enslave the people and that is why they did it behind closed doors? What does it matter that it is behind closed doors? The constitution created was presented to the people for ratification or rejection. Arguably, they would be entitled to seclusion from the media and lobbyists (as Jim claims would be the real push behind those decisions) to ensure honest and open discussion about our constitutional plight.

    Jim again goes off the deep end of conspiracies to justify his position. He says, "Just as many groups have already written our New States Constitution, with no rights and only 8 regions that will dictate whatever the one-worlders want." What?! Again, Jim drops another bomb of conspiracy to convince others that we have only to fear the people because we are all controlled by "one-worlders." And Jim cites no evidence regarding his claim that the new state constitutions have destroyed our liberty. In fact, Montana's constitution is considered by many to be an excellent protector of individual rights–more so than the USC. And what is this "8 regions that will dictate" to us? What is Jim talking about? How can we have intellectual discussion when people use these conspiracies as a basis of political life?

    Jim then brings up the Declaration of Independence again. He says I am continuing to use it. Again, he denies it has any relevance to any matter of the people's power to alter, amend or abolish a constitution. How anyone can take Jim's political views seriously when he does accept the principles in the Declaration of Independence is beyond belief to me. Regardless, he says, "I would remind him that it is NOT the governing document of ANY nation, anywhere on earth." I really do not know what Jim is getting at here. No, the Declaration was not meant to be a governing document. It was meant to be a political document to illustrate to the world why they had the right to separate from Great Britain. It contained the principles of the Enlightenment Philosophy.

    But perhaps Jim does not realize that Montana's Enabling Act requires that the state of Montana not enact any constitutional provisions or laws contrary to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Our Enabling Act says,

    "The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence."

    But Jim believes that our Constitution prevents the people from altering or even abolishing the Constitution, even though 1787 proves him wrong without any room for debate. The entire rationale used by the Federalists to justify the new constitution was the Declaration of Independence and the right of the people to self-govern.

    Jim displays his ignorance of what constitutional law and the role of the Judiciary is all about. Jim claims that the Constitution today is the same as it was in 1791. He claims,

    "It may be abused by those in power, but it is still the same words that the Founders intended, including the intended meanings of those words, despite the revisionists’ hopes and false statements alluding to 'redefined' terms. The Constitution’s 'original meanings' of its words are still intact. Look in any dictionary and those meanings still exist. That others choose to use a meaning that is 'modern, and up to date in Kansas City' does not alter its meaning at the time it was written, and per the Constitution, as those words STILL mean."

    Jim states only a theorized version of his idea of a constitution. So, what is Jim to do with the well-established Jurisprudence of the federal courts that have defined what Jim claims is so clear? As I showed in my original article, which Jim apparently rejects, even the Founders did not pretend that the Judiciary would not define the Constitution over time that they did not know about or intend in their day.

    Jim would have all of the United States accept HIS rendition of what "commerce among the several States" means, even though HIS version has not bee used for 100+ years. Is Jim's method of "restoring liberty" going to undo those welds of our constitutional law? No.

    Jim shows his ignorance again by stating that "nothing in either the Declaration to give us the right or power to dissolve the Constitution." Jim is wrong. Madison cited the Declaration as the basis for their delegates seceding from the Articles of Confederation to form the Constitution Jim claims is still intact. Under Jim's theory, we should still be living under the Articles of Confederation because their constitution required unanimous vote to amend it; yet the new constitution allowed them to secede from it by a 3/4 ratification. Does Jim propose we scrap the Constitution and reinstitute the Articles of Confederation? If not, then he accepts Madison's position that the Declaration of Independence serves as the basis for abolishing a constitution. But again, it appears Jim has not read ANY Enlightenment philosopher that addressed the subject of political power of the people to self-govern.

    Jim, once again, brings up the "unlimited convention" idea (as a bad thing.) He says, "nor anything in the Constitution that gives anyone the right or power to control a Con-con once it is convened; and there is NO provision for a 'limited amendment convention'." I have address Jim's point on this repeatedly.

    Jim continues his scare tactics and demonstrates his distrust of the American people–again! He says,

    "we see many groups of leftists and rightists throwing up web site advocating that we all 'propose an amendment' to our legislatures – again hood-winking those who fall for that gambit, that a Con-con will be 'amendment limited'."

    So Jim thinks 2/3s and 3/4s of the States will rid us of fundamental rights of gun possession? Hasn't Jim seen the outcry against federal gun bans, even the recent one attempted by Feinstein? Does Jim think that such an amendment would be accepted by 3/4s of the States to turn the 2nd amendment into something worse than what it has been interpreted to mean?

    The ONLY states that would go for such an amendment are the ones that are controlled by democrats and socialists, but they are SERIOUSLY outnumbered by the other States that refuse to go along with that. Additionally, if we are given a new constitution to ratify, the non-ratifying States will not be bound by a new constitution ratified by socialist states.

    Jim continues, "Tim knows I am right, and he does a disservice to us all – despite his MANY 1,000s of words above to the contrary in which he thinks HE knows what we, the people 'need' to make Congress heel." Why Jim continues to accuse me of writing thousands of words when his words are as numerous is VERY weird. Say, has Jim read the Constitutional Convention Debates of 1787? Has Jim considered that they are comprised of hundreds of thousands of words. Does Jim think that such a subject can addressed in a short story form?

    I suppose Jim thinks the Federalist Papers and Enlightenment works are too cumbersome, or even needless, to study as well because the Constitution is JUST THAT SIMPLE! This mentality and approach to this subject demonstrates why Jim is biased towards any idea that does not fit in the little box created by people who think constitutional law is so simple that even a monkey could figure out what "commerce among the several states" means and why the federal courts will, of course, overturn 100 years of decisions. Obviously, it is NOT that simple, and what makes it more complicated is determining how to undo hundreds of years of Jurisprudence that is solely determined by the Judges–unless of course the PEOPLE step up and correct them!

    Jim references the purpose of the States in curtailing federal encroachment. He said, "We already have – it is called the state legislatures, and they most surely CAN ignore the carrot on the Federal stick if they so choose. Without having to invent some phony arguments for a Con-con to get Congress to back down." I have written on this as well, but the States serving as the buffer between the federal government and the people only goes so far. Additionally, the States cannot create federal Jurisprudence to define the US Constitution. They can only say, we do not agree. This takes only to a point.

    Jim wants to now play the game of "what is the law." He would like for us to believe that the federal courts have no bearing on what the Constitution means. He views our constitutional system through very unrealistic lenses. He says,

    "As for the court history. No mandate from any court is 'law of the land' if it is not compliant with limits imposed on the states ('prohibited to the states') or 'powers delegated to Congress'."

    So, where is Jim's theory seen in practice? It is not. The US S CT has since 1791 determined matters of constitutionality, and we have operated that way since. Jim's view of the Constitution is almost religious in nature–it is god-like. As God is the same yesterday, today and forever, so is the Constitution. Sorry, it has not worked that way and never will. Even the common law took hundreds of years to explain and is still developing today.

    Jim says, "State legislatures are the final arbiters, acting FOR the people." Jim is wrong here. Read my article on the States. http://libertydefenseleague.com/Articles/tabid/52….

    The States can only stand up and resist where they determine the federal government is acting tyrannical. This is the exception, not the rule. But constitutional law is a matter of norms, not exceptions. It will require too much energy and money for the States to continually resist every federal law they felt was unconstitutional.

    Moreover, Jim misstates a very serious principle. He says the legislatures are the final arbiters of the Constitution. He sort of invokes the Southern Confederacy here, which falls in line with his previous comments about the "War of Northern Aggression"–clearly a sympathizer of their cause for independence. Very strangely, Jim denies to the people what he would give to their representatives–again showing his distrust of people.

    No, the Founders said that political power rests in the people. Their representatives have no more power than they do. The people are the final arbiters of the Constitution, which is what the Federalist Papers said expressly. Upon this, they told us to use Article V to correct federal abuses. Jim would have us repeat 1860, alluding to the second amendment as our end answer. Nonsense.

    Jim claims that the people's delegates are less trustworthy than their legislators. He says, "We do not need a wholly new body of 'delegates' who will NOT represent any but political parties and special interests to 're-make' ANY part of our history or the Constitution." Jim's bias against the people and their delegates is shown again. He thinks we are all controlled by special interests, "one-worlders," and the like–whatever that means. People should reject such methods of conspiracy to judge reality and our political options.

    In #24, Jim states, "An interesting debater’s method is to make many statements then challenge opponents to refute each and every one. I will not fall for that Tim." I don't know what Jim is talking about. Debate means taking points, premises, and conclusions and challenging each one. I guess Jim would like to make points and just let them go unchallenged, and then when he is challenged to answer points I have made, he sees that some sort of trap. If we don't have full debate, we don't have full knowledge.

    Jim now reveals how he trusts Congress more than our delegates. He says,

    "The debate is Con-con or Congress method of proposing amendments. We should use the one that has a history of success [both in terms of 'wanted' or 'needed', as well as unwanted and unneeded], not the one that failed the only time it was used."

    Interestingly, Jim thinks that the 1787 convention was a failure–but he claims the Constitution must not change. Strange.

    Jim distorts what the "Founders believed" when he says,

    "IN FACT, the Founders themselves were opposed to the Legislative approach for the very reasons others and I have stated."

    I showed in my original article that this is wholly untrue. I cited the Federalist Papers, which were used as the rationale of ratifying the Constitution. They advocated using Article V to correct the federal government. Jim throws reality out the window. He advances a myth of the Founders to undermine the very method they promoted. I am curious if Jim even read my article series at all. Or does Jim think that his thoughts of political reality stand alone without reference, like not having to study the Federalist Papers to understand the Constitution?

    Jim states his position,

    "We stand by our arguments and do not need tomes of verbiage, repeated over and over and over, to convince us otherwise. We do not need to refute every word you have written, because the bandwidth of polymontana is unlikely to contain all that would require."

    Jim would like to repeat himself to make his point, but wants me to shut up and quit taking up bandwidth. Jim thinks he does not need to rebut "every word I have written." Yet I have taken the time in each of Jim's responses to go paragraph by paragraph to show why he is wrong. I guess I do not deserve the same respect on this crucial topic. We can just assume Jim's rebuttals to my arguments are all valid. No, there is no such presumption in this debate. So, the lack of fullness of the debate undermines your credibility and position.

    Jim concludes as he has done before by attacking lawyers, presumably because they are part of the "new world order" and are employed "by the crown of England." What else can we think about a person's incessant desire to make attorneys look bad every chance he gets? I wonder if that is why Jim thinks 1787 was so bad–because most of the Founders were attorneys. If so, I can see why Jim doesn't like my positions, or Rob Natelson. We are just slimy attorneys out to get everyone's money and liberty. Right?

    Speaking of declaring himself a winner be default, Jim says, that I have "gotten NO support here at polymontana, other than by way of a free forum for your views." I am not looking for support. I am looking to speak the truth. I guess Jim is in a popularity contest.

    Jim continues his personal attack on me. "Tim, you choose to continue to browbeat as the typical attorney method." What does that mean? Explaining details? Rebuttal details? Requiring accuracy in ideas? I hope Jim does not become someone's criminal defense attorney. If so, that person is screwed.

    Jim tries to bring in rules of evidence now, saying, "I would object if this were a court of law – as I am sure you would too, were it being done to you. Thanks but no thanks." I wonder on what grounds Jim would object since he claims to know so much about the law.

    Jim has offered nothing to justify his position. He misstates the law. He doesn't even know what the Federalists and Anti-Federalists said on this subject. He rejects the power of the people to change their constitution or abolish it. He bases his opinions in conspiracy theory. He demeans people for their profession and presumes attorneys are out to get him and his guns.

    If Jim has convinced anyone he is right through his misstated facts, baseless theories, personal biases, and unfounded principles, then perhaps Jim has something when he says the people aren't to trusted with Article V. Or perhaps Jim is a part of the world conspiracy to keep people ignorant of what they can do to improve their own political condition.

  29. Sent by Dan Cox, Montana Libertarian candidate for US Senate in 2012:

    First of all, I need to say that I once felt like Tim and respect his beliefs. I think he is truly trying to find solutions, where others haven’t. Being in the fight for liberty is light years more effort than most people put forward. Over time, I have seen us lose more good people than we gain every year in government positions. I think some Constitutional Amendments are long over due, but a Constitutional Convention under Article V could destroy the whole entire Constitution. Really I think we need to end Sovereign Immunity. How can we have a government of We The People if they are immune from lawsuit, because of the injuries that they cause to the American people in violation of our rights? Really we are living under the King’s rule. Go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman Stump vs Sparkman and you will instantly realize that our representatives and judges are completely above the law (Lex, Rex,) http://www.constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm .

    There are lots of arguments on both sides about what an Article V Convention entails. Frankly, nobody knows. Just like we thought that Obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional. It wasn’t, and this issue will no doubt be decided by the exact same criminal Supreme Court. The people who are in office now would be in charge of appointing members and/or attending this Convention. Their votes have already proven that they are destroyers of natural rights. We can’t get these people to protect our rights now. They are not good people as a whole, just look at our own legislators in Montana. Are they really better than our Federal representatives? I think not.

    If you want to let the crooks take open shots at the Constitution and the few rights that we have left, then yes open it up to a Constitutional Convention. I think regardless of the arguments, the Federalist papers unfortunately are exactly what we are living today. How is that working for you? Hamilton is probably the last person I would be quoting. He is Mr. Central Banking system and he spoke strongly for a strong Federal Government. In Federalist paper 84 Hamilton even argued against having a bill of rights:

    “I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

    "I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the National Government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for Bills of Rights.”

    It seems that Tim errs in his use of Hamilton’s quotes, because he thought the Bill of Rights would be a bad thing. If we are using Hamilton as the teacher, we should be repealing the Bill of Rights, strengthening the Federal Government and instituting Central Banks in order to make ourselves free, not amending our rights through a Constitutional Convention.

    The truth, that nobody wants to state is that all freedom is taken or given through force only. That is the only way it has happened throughout history. From a political perspective, if you have good representatives they will force freedom. Otherwise, bad men will force tyranny by pointing the gun of government in your face. It is just that simple. Freedom is unfortunately at its’ weakest moment in U.S. History. The majority of people have no clue what is best. We have a 101 million people on some form of food assistance. I truly doubt they are going to vote to take that food away from themselves.

    I would generally take the arguments of the anti-federalist papers as friends of natural law vs the federalist papers. I think each writing has good and bad points, but over all I would take Jefferson over Hamilton any day. I think the warnings of the anti-federalist papers should be ringing loud and clear.

    At this point, I think only educating adults and children will save us. No matter what action is to be taken, leaders cannot lead if there is no one to lead. I think private liberty schools or colleges would do more for liberty than anything else. I have been wrong before though, that is why good men should argue the finer points of liberty. After all, nobody knows everything and nobody is perfect.

    In Liberty,
    Daniel Cox

  30. Dan,

    I appreciate your comments. There are a variety of things that can be addressed to limit power. Sovereign Immunity is a long-held principle that the State cannot operate properly and fully without being free from ordinary suits that individuals are subject to. In Montana and under federal law too, governments can be sued for violating civil rights where the elements are met. In fact, these actions are on the rise, and I personally handle them. We can't say that the government has no accountability at law, because it does.

    As for the Federalist v. Anti-Federalist advocates, there were statesmen on both sides. The Anti-Federalists had many things right, yes. But using the Federalists is the most appropriate today, I believe, because their arguments won the day. If we are going to "get back the to the Constitution," we have to use them, not the anti-federalists. But if you want to use the anti-federalists, then you have to admit that having more than 1 union in America is ideal. If we don't know what the Federalists argued about the USC and why, we will have little guidance for our own direction today.

    As for Hamilton, he was a genius and scientist perhaps out-learned by no one of his day. His arguments were so convincing that it persuaded, in large part, all the States to ratify, even though it was unlikely. His position on the Bill of Rights, as Dan quotes above, is actually more in line with the works of people like Emer de Vattel. Hamilton based his position on the very nature of what a federal constitution is: all things not delegated are reserved; to reserve something implies that all matters not reserved are granted. This exactly how the USC is applied for the most part. Thus, Hamilton's prediction that it was "dangerous" is true.

    Dan, your comments are interesting about Hamilton. You acknowledge that he was a monarchists and central-government advocate, yet he advocated and ultimately had the prevail adopt Federal principles of the USC. In other words, Hamilton knew that his ideas of monarchism would never prevail among the people. They were too jealous of local authority. Thus, he conceded his own preference knowing they would fail. He accepted what he considered a "lesser evil" of having the USC over the AofC. This shows that politicians' personal preferences will never carry the day in America. The people are still too jealous of local and state authority.

    Education: yes! It is the key to enlightenment.

  31. Tim; All civil rights laws are right out of the communist handbook. Civil rights laws are right out of the 14th Amendment. Before the civil rights bill of 1964, the family was one economic unit, after the bill was passed all Americans became economics units. This bill destroyed the family. Question; Can a ship have two captains, well either can the family. This bill also created AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND QUOTAS, it force men and fathers to compete with another man's wife to get a job, this all happen in 1972, and since 1972 the inflation rate has been 15%, before 1972 it was 2%. Since 1964 congress has passed over 400 laws to empower women, 0 laws for men. In communist Russia 1919, the very first law passed by there congress, was to stop the exploitation of women, so the communist took all women out of the home, and put them into communes . Now since no was home rearing children , the communist assumes that roll. The same thing happen in this country starting in 1972.

  32. To Tim and Jim, I am sorry , but I do not trust the American voter, especially when 55% of Americas workforce works for government. There are 45 million people on food stamps. There are 20 to 30 million retired government employes. This leaves only 63 million people working in the private sector, and probably 60% of them are catering to the government employees, because they have most of the money. I was an electrician back in the 60's and 70's ,working back in New Jersey . 1971, President Nixon went on TV, saying he was going to change Americas economy from an industrial to a service economy. The same year he created the EPA. At that point they started to shut down our industries ie the steel mills, tool and die companies, any factory that produce a little smoke. In 1970, America was the greatest industrial nation on the face of the earth. Getting back to 1971, all the men who lost their jobs, instead of getting mad, they said O WELL , the same thing in Oregon and Washington, when government environmentalist using the courts shut down fishing and then logging, and the men said o well. Same thing in Montana , when they shut down logging using Judge Maloy , the Loggers said o well. Question; If this Country has another war, like the 2nd world war, how are we going to build the things we need to fight this war, will the men really care.

  33. Dick Wells emailed his comment to me. Here it is:

    by Dick Wells, Thompson Falls, Montana

    Is a Con-Con the only way?

    The Constitution has twenty-seven Amendments; none of which, are the product of a Con-Con. Why start now? What would happen if ¾ of the States’ legislatures passed a bill to amend the Constitution for the United States of America and directed their respective Senators to “get it done?”

    Remember, Article IV section 4 is still the law of the land; the States are still guaranteed a republican form of government. Montana can lead the way.

    Determine the need

    Montana can solicit each State for a limited list (typically five line items) of desired Amendments. Priority establishes the items listed among the States thus: if the majority of the States want a particular Amendment, that Amendment becomes the first priority for all the States.

    The next most listed item becomes the second priority, and so forth. Though more than five items total might be submitted, the fifth item prioritized concludes the list.

    Amendment draft

    For each Amendment, one State, determined by random lottery selection, shall take the lead drafting the next in line prioritized Amendment. Each Amendment is a single topic. Since we have all been thinking and talking about Amendments for a long time, let us avoid lengthy discussion or quibbling about amending the Amendment.

    States have to agree

    Each State shall retain the same language in their bills. There is no room for ambiguity; the bills would have to be identical in every respect. Each State agrees to:
    1. The single topic Amendment bill from a prioritized list;
    2. The bill has the same exact wording from State-to-State;
    3. No matter the order, or priority, each State shall address the issue at hand, and its remedy;
    4. Each State shall direct its Senators to sponsor the agreed upon Amendment.

    Up-or-down vote

    Each State legislature shall vote, up or down, on the Amendment; and then direct their respective Senators to sponsor the approved Amendment.

    One issue at a time

    Only one Amendment moves forward at a time. When an Amendment runs its course, the next Amendment in priority moves forward.

    Article V satisfied

    No need for an Article V convention if the States decide amongst themselves and direct their Senators to act. The Amendment can then come forward in the Senate and be referred, by 2/3 vote of both houses, to the States for Ratification per Article V.

    Conclusion

    While this can be seen as an end-run around an Article V Con-Con, it accomplishes the same thing without the risk of a runaway convention. However, unless the States bring their enforcement power to bear on the United States government, and until the United States is fully compliant to the Constitution for the United States of America, Amendments though desirable, do seem pointless.

    Respectfully, Dick Wells, Thompson Falls, MT

  34. Dick raises some good points, but I believe his proposal is not as viable as the States' convention.

    Dick asks, "Is a Con-Con the only way?" Of course it is not the ONLY way. But we are looking at realities. So, the question is, what is the best way?

    Dick states, "The Constitution has twenty-seven Amendments; none of which, are the product of a Con-Con. Why start now?" because we have reached a point of fundamental changes. Have the 27 amendments he references restored liberty the way we need it to? Has it rolled back federal power? Has it decreased Congress' power under the Commerce Clause? These amendments have passed through Congress, but our circumstances requiring amendments are very different from the 27, with exception of perhaps one–the 11th amendment.

    Dick asks, "What would happen if ¾ of the States’ legislatures passed a bill to amend the Constitution for the United States of America and directed their respective Senators to 'get it done?'" In reality, 3/4 of the States have already passed convention bills–not on the same subjects, but most have passed the balanced budget amendment. I venture to say many will be applying for convention to undo Obamacare and the like. Yet, Congress has failed to act on these applications thus far.

    Dick states, "Remember, Article IV section 4 is still the law of the land; the States are still guaranteed a republican form of government. Montana can lead the way." Yes, but the Commerce and Tax Powers are the problem. Those are the powers used to increase federal power beyond our comprehension. These have nothing to do with a republican form of government, so that is not relevant to the discussion.

    Dick proposes, "Montana can solicit each State for a limited list (typically five line items) of desired Amendments. Priority establishes the items listed among the States thus: if the majority of the States want a particular Amendment, that Amendment becomes the first priority for all the States." This is true, but we would still be relying on the proper, or should I say, perfect makeup of Congress such that Congress would be willing to fundamentally reduce their own power. Likely? I don't think so.

    What is MUCH more likely is that States increase their powers and reduce the federal government's powers through a state convention. This is what Hamilton and Madison said in the Federalists Papers–that the States would amend to reduce federal power when they felt necessary. They expected the States to bypass Congress–that is why they drafted Article V the way they did.

    Dick proposes, "The next most listed item becomes the second priority, and so forth. Though more than five items total might be submitted, the fifth item prioritized concludes the list." It is a nice thought, but I think human nature would require a looser action. It would require a convention that would allow the States to debate the issues, live and in real time. Dick's proposal would take 50 years for all the States to debate in this manner.

    Dick states, "For each Amendment, one State, determined by random lottery selection, shall take the lead drafting the next in line prioritized Amendment. Each Amendment is a single topic. Since we have all been thinking and talking about Amendments for a long time, let us avoid lengthy discussion or quibbling about amending the Amendment." Dick presumes that the States can make these kinds of rules without being in convention for the same purpose. Dick has an idea, but I don't think it would work in reality.

    Dick proposes, "Each State shall retain the same language in their bills. There is no room for ambiguity; the bills would have to be identical in every respect. Each State agrees to:
    1. The single topic Amendment bill from a prioritized list;
    2. The bill has the same exact wording from State-to-State;
    3. No matter the order, or priority, each State shall address the issue at hand, and its remedy;
    4. Each State shall direct its Senators to sponsor the agreed upon Amendment."

    Again, it's a plan, but not workable. The founders could have done this as well to the Articles of Confederation, but they knew to hash out the details of correcting their dire plight, they had to meet in convention for several months for real, live debate. Getting the requisite number of states to all agree on exact language may be possible, but without being convened for the same purpose to address exact language, it is not likely.

    Then, there is the problem with Congress, which I don't think will be willing to limit their own power. If Congress is in fact "controlled" by globalists, etc., as some claim, what incentive do they have to give the States more power and to take away the source of their power: the commerce and tax power?

    Dick states, "No need for an Article V convention if the States decide amongst themselves and direct their Senators to act. The Amendment can then come forward in the Senate and be referred, by 2/3 vote of both houses, to the States for Ratification per Article V." First, Senators are elected by the people directly. They have little or no accountability to the legislature. You cannot rely on them for that purpose. My other comments above apply here. Congress is not going to limit its own power. You cannot even get Congress to defund TSA's spying on Americans. You can't get them to undo Obamacare. You can hardly get Republicans to cut spending and cut regulations. Do you think they are going to cut the legs off of the Commerce and Tax power such that the States have balanced power with them? Really?! Again, this is a question of reality and the best method of restoring liberty and power to the people. Using Congress is not our best opportunity.

    Dick concludes, "While this can be seen as an end-run around an Article V Con-Con, it accomplishes the same thing without the risk of a runaway convention. However, unless the States bring their enforcement power to bear on the United States government, and until the United States is fully compliant to the Constitution for the United States of America, Amendments though desirable, do seem pointless."

    Dick proposes a "tighty" alternative to the States' convention, but we have a MUCH better change putting more power into the States' hands through their own convention, not through Congress.

  35. There has never been a call for a con-con, except for the Original Constitution Convention, the original constitution was not working, and our Founding Fathers gave the greatest Constitution ever written. All most every President since Pres. Wilson have hated the Constitution , they did not like their hands being bound by the Constitution. No one knows what the rules will be. Article 5 of the Constitution does not explain what the rules are, and with the idiots running this Country, I do not trust them. Just look at Montana, we elected two Senators , who in my opinion would not make good dog catchers. This holds true for most of the States. Our Congress is made up with some good Republicans, but they are mostly democrats and RINO's.

  36. Fred, the reality is, an amendment is NECESSARY to change our Jurisprudence. All this talk about Congress and President mean nothing. We have to change the rules of law that have been developed for a hundred years. Your lack of faith in the people is doomsday talk. It offers no solution. Americans, for the large part, want LESS government, not more. This is our time to elect local delegates for an Article V convention to put more power into local hands. The States WILL do that.

  37. This amounts to nothing. It would take me too much time to show why. Bottom line: it is a diversion of people's minds and time to get to the real crux of our problems. Enough of the mystical conspiracy theories.

  38. So there you have it folks! I think we who oppose a Con Con or whatever Tim and Mark and Rob what to rename it, we have just been dismissed.

    So Dr. Ed. What's the final tally and your input, final summary/words of wisdom? I think you said you'd let us know?
    And Tim, what will part 8 deal with in your series to restore Liberty?

  39. Rush Limbaugh supports using Article to get our Constitution back:

    RUSH: Fredericksburg, Texas. Jerry, it's great to have you on the EIB Network today. Hi.

    CALLER: Thank you, sir. I tell you what, I have to admit, I'm a discouraged, pessimistic American. I'm ashamed to say that because I was raised to be optimistic.

    RUSH: Yeah.

    CALLER: And today it seems to me that we're just on the precipice of going over. I don't know what can be done. I mean, you say we need policies. The Republican Party is obsolete, in my opinion. I think the only policy we need is, as you say, the Constitution. I'm just finishing up reading the Federalist Papers. And to see the arguments that took place back in the —
    RUSH: Let me give you something else to read. Have you heard of Mark Levin's new book, The Liberty Amendments?

    CALLER: Yes, I have. I've ordered it from Amazon and it hasn't arrived yet.

    RUSH: Okay, well, read it when it does. It's fascinating. Everybody still asks me, "Rush what can I do, besides vote?" Everybody wants to do something. Well, look, the standard, ordinary give-and-take and back-and-forth of politics isn't gonna work anymore. The Constitution's broken. We're not living under it anymore. It's already been bastardized. The Constitution is going to have to be put back together. It's going to have to be reaffirmed. It's already being torn apart. It's being shredded. It's being ignored by this president who just chooses which law and what part of a law he wants to obey or not.

    CALLER: Well, he's the nearest thing to a despot that we've ever elected.

    RUSH: True. Woodrow Wilson a close second, followed by his wife when Woodrow had the stroke or whatever. But the thing about The Liberty Amendments is that the premise is the Founders understood that what we are going through today was very possible, and they had a prescription to fix it. There are remedies for this. The remedy is not the Republican Party, not as it's currently constituted or operating. The American people are going to have to fix this, and that's what Levin's book is about. It's a wonderful book.

    I don't want to say it's simple, but it makes so much sense. He proposes 10 amendments that simply reaffirm the original intent of the Constitution and then gives a thorough explanation for why each amendment is in fact justified and warranted and traces it back to the days of the founding. And it is something that, the more people read it, the more people become familiar with it and demand that something be done to reaffirm and strengthen the Constitution, it's something like this that is going to be necessary, because the Constitution is broken. We cannot rely on it now.

    RUSH: Look, folks, the Founders of this country never, ever intended that one judge determines the law of the land. John Roberts and Obamacare, Anthony Kennedy on whatever the issue. This was never intended. So much of what is happening now was not intended. Presidents don't have the right to pick and choose what parts of legislation they like and implement that and deny other parts. The American people have the power to change this, but not at the ballot box. At least that's one of the theories of The Liberty Amendments. The Constitution is going to have to be reaffirmed and a new reminder to elected officials of what the law is is going to have to be made.

    One of the points in the book is that the states, the amendment process is right there in Article V, how to deal with out of control administrations, how to deal with leaders that are abrogating and denying the Constitution, shredding it. It's right there. The Founders are brilliant. They knew what they were doing. They weren't just devising a formula for life during their era. They were devising a structure for all time, and, as such, they were able, 'cause they understood human nature, they were able to understand exactly how despotism happens, dictatorship happens, usurpation of freedom by governments, how it happens.

    That's why the country came into existence. And there is a recipe, there's a formula, there's a proscription in the Constitution for addressing the problems we have today and fixing them. And it involves the states. In our Constitution, the states, particularly banded together, have far more power than the federal government, and the people, and it's going to have to happen. And it's gonna be slow in coming. This is gonna be resisted by the current ruling class. They're not gonna want any part of this. So it's gonna have to effervesce from the grassroots up.

    There are a lot of grassroots efforts taking place right now simply because of the realization that there is not — I don't think there's a single mechanism in Washington that's structured right now and oriented toward addressing the real problems that we have. Mounting debt. I mean, this was never intended. This was never thought to be acceptable. Never. This kind of thing is what was supposed to not happen. In almost every venue, almost every area of government, the EPA, all these bureaucracies, able to write their own laws and regulations without going through the representatives of the people. That was never intended. That was never part of the plan.

    The Constitution's bastardized. It's been bastardized for years. It's been shredded for years. It needs to be reaffirmed. And Levin's book is a series of ideas of how to do it that involves the American people. The Liberty Amendments. There are 10 of them. And I don't want to go through all of them for you here, but one of them actually term limits judges, 12 years, Supreme Court. That's it. There's no reason we need some babbling idiot that can't add two and two anymore on the court.

    Some people are afraid that once you convene a meeting, a convention, to start amending the Constitution, that you're opening the door to the left. This is dealt with in the book as well. I don't want to give everything away. But that is dealt with. Keep in mind, too, that the left wants to do this themselves. They're not happy. The reason the Constitution's being shredded and the reason it's being shredded and bastardized, it's by them, and they don't like it. The Constitution doesn't give them enough power. The Constitution, as written, grants all the power to the people and all the power to the states. That's unacceptable.

    They want their new Bill of Rights. They want 10 brand-new amendments that specifically spell out the power that government has over us. The Bill of Rights as written, of course, limit the federal government's power, and that's why they exist. So if you find yourself frustrated, asking yourself, "What can I do, what is there to be done," take a look at this and see.

  40. From Tim Baldwin's 7th part of this series:
    "America’s Declaration of Independence declares,

    "the people have a right “to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
    "Essential to this power is the people’s right to call a constitutional convention
    …"

    Yet, when I challenged him for citing the Declaration, he denied doing so. Lawyers!

  41. @45 Fred,

    Here is a quote from Mark Levin's book:

    Unlike the modern Statist, who defies, ignores, or rewrites the Constitution for the purpose of evasion, I propose that we, the people, take a closer look at the Constitution for our preservation. The Constitution itself provides the means for restoring self-government and averting societal catastrophe (or, in the case of societal collapse, resurrecting the civil society) in Article V.

    Article V sets forth the two processes for amending the Constitution, the second of which I have emphasized in italics:

    "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  .  .  . 21"

    Importantly, in neither case does the Article V amendment process provide for a constitutional convention. It provides for two methods of amending the Constitution. The first method, where two-thirds of Congress passes a proposed amendment and then forwards it to the state legislatures for possible ratification by three-fourths of the states, has occurred on twenty-seven occasions. The second method, involving the direct application of two-thirds of the state legislatures for a Convention for proposing Amendments, which would thereafter also require a three-fourths ratification vote by the states, has been tried in the past but without success. Today it sits dormant.

    Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (Kindle Locations 176-183). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition.

    I think this makes clear that Mark Levin IS calling for an Article 5 Convention of the second method, namely, one initiated by the States.

  42. Mark Levin states what I have been stating for years. I respect his thoughts and analysis as an attorney and philosopher. He advocates that the STATES reign in the federal government through the second method of amending the Constitution. This is what the Federalist Papers said as well.

    Levin proposes, as I and many others have, that the States apply Congress to call a States' convention so the delegates can propose amendments. After 2/3 of the States pass proposed amendments (after much debate, no doubt), the proposed amendments are sent to the States for ratification, which requires 3/4 of the States.

    Mark puts it this way,

    "if Americans want to remain free, to start reacquainting ourselves with the Constitution and specifically article five and specifically the second part of article five, which is the amendment process. The framers thought, some of them in particular, that we might reach this point with an oppressive centralized government."

    Mark speaks the truth. Thank God he is. Anyone who denies or opposes his logic and reasoning must, by virtue of their own principles, admit that they feel our Constitution is NOT too far gone and that it is still possible to restore original Jurisprudence through NORMAL political processes, such as voting. In reality, these same people are the most ardent to declaim Republicans–those they feel are "lesser evils" and deserve no support. Their logic and philosophy makes NO sense. If liberty cannot be restored through the Republican Party (as it relates to voting), then there is no "getting back to the Constitution." One can argue all day long that there may be "better" candidates in independent parties, but no one can argue that our Jurisprudence will be effectively restored through them because those independent parties have no organization or resources to do so. Theories that fall in practice must give way to reality.

    These people abandon the only viable method of "getting back to the Constitution" we have today and then want to denounce people like me, Rob Natelson and Mark Levin, because we dare advocate that voting will NOT bring our Jurisprudence to any place near what these opponents to Article V claim we can accomplish through voting. At the same time they waste their breath proving points that are meaningless, they cannot offer one ray of hope to change hundreds of years of Jurisprudence except through Article V. They become enemies to their own cause and lambast their best friends because those people are foresighted enough to see that normal process is not enough today.

    These same Article V opponents declare that the Constitution IS NOT being followed and hasn't been for decades, if not over 100 years; and they ignore the fact that this happened through court decisions–not through congressional or presidential usurpation. These people advocate unprovable theories. They apply NO practical experience to their logic. They speak in a vacuum and undermine their own theory that the country is "too far gone."

    Based upon their theories, THEY, of all people, should be advancing the Republican Party more than any group in America. But they aren't, because they KNOW more than voting is required. They KNOW that we do not have enough time to educate every person we would like to so we can feel so extremely comfortable with political decisions outside normal process. Before they take any steps beyond their comfort zone, they would have every American see things their way and swear to God that they will always do so. They reject that Americans can see the general interest of reducing federal power to give it back to local authorities. They choose to believe fictions and refuse to see the reality that the States reject autocratic federal power and are taking and have been taking steps to push federal encroachment away.

    Article V opponents demonstrate that they move by the force of fear, not through the force of reason and choice. Yet they denounce and declaim those who vote for Republicans they deem are "too evil to elect" and then criticize those who do vote for them because they do not want the greater evil becoming elected. If Article V opponents are going to denounce such rationale of people who vote for "lesser evils," then they must denounce their own rationale of choosing the "lesser evil" (in their mind) of doing nothing to change our Jurisprudence through Article V. But in reality, the lesser evil is using Article V. The greater evil is for the people to do nothing but let federal politicians determine the course of our future.

    Article V WILL be used in my life time. I just wish we could wake up conservatives (like JBS) to the fact that our true opportunity to restore limited government is NOW and not generations in the future. We HAVE enough conservatives NOW to change our direction in a fundamental way. Why are we shirking this duty to do what our Founders said we should do?

    Look at Montana in 2013. We passed several citizens' initiatives that expressly opposed federal power and policy–and these laws passed overwhelmingly. This is happening all over America. Even the liberal states of Washington and Colorado expressly opposed federal drug laws by making marijuana legal. The States are TIRED of federal encroachment. They want more power and control over their internal affairs. The federal government does not. So which entity will likely change our jurisprudence to favor the States?

    The States using Article V WILL happen. Get ready. Patriots should reject the mindless and baseless conspiracy theorists that Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are "out to get us." Patriots should reject the conjectures that since these men advocate using Article V (as the Founders did) to correct these fundamental grievances, we should reject using Article V. That is nonsense and childish.

    Enough of irrational-ism and skepticism. It is time to get back to the brilliance of pragmatics and rationalism of the Enlightenment, in addition to the Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill–the great libertarian. I, for one, am ready for a real liberty movement.

  43. Calling for a constitutional convention seems a little drastic to me. I rather restore this country by restoring the family. This is an article printed a newsletter from the "Brotherhood Organization of New Destiny",this organization is run by the Rev. Jesse Peterson, he is on Fox news many times. The ruin of our nation began in our home with the this destruction of our family.In order to rebuild this nation we must rebuild our families and the place to start is with men, the man were husbands and fathers. That's take a look at what government has done to bring about the destruction of the family.It changed the classification on income tax returns from "head of household" to "joint return". This seemingly innocuous change eventually said that the man is no longer in charge of his family how can any structure survive if there is no one in charge? Another seemingly minor change occurred in the education system when single-sex education was eliminated. This action made this statement that there is no difference in the thinking and learning ability of men and women.

    After it was established that man was not the head of household, and that he was no different than women in the schools, the next step was to show that he was unnecessary. The enactment of welfare did this with a basic requirement that there must be no husband in a home.

    The rewards are welfare are so great that at this moment 12 million unwed mothers and 24 million children are being raised without fathers in the home. This was said 10 years ago.

    From welfare the next progression in the destruction the family was affirmative action.originally designed to be race and gender specific, affirmative action was enacted to help black man. Instead, qualify women were included in the program because they were qualified as minorities, to call the majority of the population of minority shows a general decline a rational thinking in this country. The result was the prime beneficiary of affirmative action were middle-class white women; that this is second were black women. A black man didn't get anything from affirmative action and the white man pay for. Affirmative action is a multi billion dollar program that has set man back and further weakening the influence of the family in a family.

    After welfare came the enactment of no-fault divorce, which in essence destroy the sanctity of marriage completely.If a woman was bored she could file for divorce, it happened the family's assets, and if the children were minors, complete custody and child support payments from the man who bored her. With welfare, children were raised by only one parent. With the advent of workfare Children are now being raised without any parents.In order to remove the mother from the home she is been trained for employment so that she can become self-sufficient economic unit. the only thing being done in recognition of man is the build more prisons. The effects of these programs has been the destruction of the family which in turn causes the ruin of our nation. if the ruin of a nation begins in home of its people, then the rebuilding of the nation must also begin in the home. The family must be strengthened. The state will not make this change. It must come from the person in the mirror. Are you ready to make a change.

    There are multitudes of fathers who cried himself to sleep every night because they cannot see their children. There are likewise mulled to the fathers who have been taking to drink and drugs because they could not support their children due to the effects of various government programs.

  44. So, we're blaming lawyers again…Okay. So perhaps Fred and Jim should start an anti-attorney political party to ban all lawyers from getting involved in politics. That's freedom, right? Or perhaps we should ban all bankers too, since they are part of the central banking system. The witch hunt mentality is dangerous to liberty as much as anything.

    Blaming attorneys for all our problems gets us nowhere and only creates a scapegoat of blame that really rests in the people. As I said before, federal power has gotten to where it has through the Commerce and Tax Power. Let's focus on that.

  45. Jim Greaves has been sending emails to me and Rob Natelson. Jim was informed that his idea that an Article V convention is essentially a Con Con is INCORRECT. Rob, through his emails and through referring to articles he has written, showed that Article V only allows for amendments and that fearing a Con Con is baseless. Jim, in response, seems satisfied with that. Again, because he wants a guarantee (as JBS argues) that the Article convention would not turn into a "runaway" convention.

    However, as I noted in my article, as our history shows, and as Rob admits, if the delegates who are sent to an Article V convention scrap the Constitution and propose a new one, this is the RULE in that situation: the STATES THAT DO NOT RATIFY THE NEW CONSTITUTION ARE NOT BOUND TO IT.

    Since we KNOW that not all of the States will ratify a socialist, rights-destroying Constitution, states like Montana and many others will remain under the USC, while the socialist states like California and a few others would go their way to launch their own experiment in socialist principles. This will create the effect of having more than one union in America, just as the Anti-Federalists proposed in 1787.

    IF socialist principles will destroy that new union under their new constitution (as they are purported to by republicans), then the socialist states in the new union WILL abandon their union and petition to join the old union again. But to do so, they would have to accept the Jurisprudence on old terms, not theirs.

  46. …oh, and it could be mentioned that should delegates in an Article V convention attempt to secede from the union by virtue of the Con Con, that any state so seceding would be committing an act of war against the union and could be treated as the seceding States of 1860. I think there is sufficient deterrence from such an act today, especially when we still live in a state of peace and relative prosperity. Or I suppose that the non-seceding/non-ratifying states could let them go their way if they felt the union's condition would improve by some states leaving.

  47. Tim; Have you ever read the original 13th Amendment, it did ban lawyers from serving as legislators . Question; How can a lawyer who is in the judicial branch ,also serve in the legislation branch, I think this is what call a conflict of interest. The lawyer would be writing laws to protect lawyers.

  48. Picky Tim does not get anyone's point but his own. I challenge him to find within the US Constitution the phrase: "constitutional amendment". If he can humbly concede that such a thing can "be", then he and Rob Natelson should back off of the contention that a "constitutional convention" does INDEED exist within the constraints of the US Constitution. Either Article V is PART OF the US Constitution, and therefore anything falling within its "lawful purview" is therefore a "constitutional convention", or Article V somehow, magically, stands alone as the "law of the land". You cannot have a part superior to the whole, Tim, Rob.

  49. Fred Hammel raises a serious, and extremely IMPORTANT point. How can an Attorney General in Montana serve two branches of government, when it is clearly stated that NO ONE may do so? … "an officer of the court" [Judiciary), and an elected member of and under control of the Administration? To whom (or what branch of government) is the person obedient – the Governor, the Judiciary, the Legislature? I know. Off topic. But Tim better start understanding this, since he seems unclear on what constitutes an article of "constitutionality" [Article V of the US Constitution) which is subservient to and DEFINED BY that constitution.

  50. Tim – where IN the US Constitution is "secession an act of war"? You have gone completely off the reservation! There is NO provision within the US Constitution that PROHIBITS a state from secession. Show us Tim!

  51. Tim asserts in his comment (#52) that "our history shows" that a Con Con cannot (and I presume has not) gone too far and been abused, or whatever it is he thinks we concern ourselves… Well, Tim, show us the history of a Con Con. The only one we know of occurred in 1787.

  52. A great deal of verbiage has been expended Tim Baldwin's messages to tell us that there is no such thing as a "constitutional convention". And, yet, he cites an integral, indivisible part of the US Constitution – Article V – as the ruling part of the whole. I would remind Tim and others that there are no such things, according to Tim's reasoning, as "constitutional rights" or "states rights" – and yet we all use and understand those terms to mean what they mean, and we also understand their derivative protective authority. The US Constitution. If you parse its parts, and refuse to discuss the entire document as ruling, then you destroy it. Divide and conquer. The UN and DNC ways.

  53. I have to quibble with Fred Hammel [#27] about 'US citizenship' . I am NOT, and never have been, according to the US Constitution, a citizen of some thing called "the United States" – because I was never incarcerated or a slave prior to the 14th amendment. Only "freed slaves" and those FORMERLY in the state of involuntary servitude, are mentioned in the 14th Amendment. I am not. And neither were my fore-bears…. all five of them…. We, the people of the United States, are citizens of the "several states", each born to a particular state, and thus citizen of THAT state. Show me where the original intent was to create a "citizen of the United States". There is not even a phrase in the original like that, and the only such phrase refers to now-deceased people who were former slaves. 14th amendment is moot.

  54. More people calling for Article V convention…

    "Monday, August 19, 2013
    MAYBE A CONVENTION OF STATES CAN CURE OUR GOVERNMENTAL PROBLEMS

    "Amending the United States Constitution is no small task. This page will detail the amendment procedure as spelled out in the Constitution, and will also list some of the Amendments that have not been passed, as well as give a list of some amendments proposed in Congress during several of the past sessions. http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

    "Citizens for Self-Governance has launched the Convention of the States Project (COS) for the purpose of urging and empowering state legislators to call an Article V Convention of the States. The Founders gave American citizens the ability to stop the runaway train of the federal government—we seek to provide the people of the United States an avenue within which to use that power. An Article V convention is safe, legal, and effective; and we believe it is the only way check the abuses of the federal government and preserve American liberty. http://conventionofstates.com/problem, http://conventionofstates.com/about-us, http://www.conventionofstates.com/"

  55. Constitutional Convention: A Gridlock of Fact and Fiction: Dr. Ed, your article was great. I am glad we had this debate, thanks Tim, Jim, Dr.Ed and all the others that became part of this debate. Wouldn't it be great if 50,000 people got involve in this debate or at least read the debate. Dr.Ed in your article you talk about the "New States of America constitution" 1974, Max's Baucus was one of the signers of the communist constitution. He has been in Washington DC, since 1974, this is what scares me about the voters of Montana, they vote for welfare.

  56. I found a report created by the US Attorney General in 1987 that concluded Article V allows the States to limit an amendment convention to particular subjects. This report can and would be used by the States to limit a convention to "limiting the federal government's power…" Any delegates that attempted to contradict the Supreme Law of the Land of Article V would be met as usurpers of the Constitution. No State would be bound by any delegates proposal for a new constitution.

  57. Jim;Does not like what I said about the 14th Amendment. There have been 500,000 books written on the 14th Amendment.Here are the results of the 14th Amendment.
    Since the enactment of the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment has produced extensive controversy over the intentions of its framers and in specific applications by Supreme Court. Whatever the intent of the framers may have been, the uses of the 14th amendment have altered the federal system. The due process clause and equal protection clause have been prominent in constitutional disputes for many years. Both have made possible federal intervention against alleged state encroachment on the rights of the people. For a time, the due process clause was used mainly to limit the states in the exercise other taxing and police powers and business regulations. Since 1925, the due process clause has been interpreted by the courts to prevent states denial of First Amendment freedoms as well as essential procedural rights found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and the Eighth amendments. The equal protection clause has been invoked to restrain racial segregation practices, to maintain fair legislative up appointments by the states, to gain equal justice for the poor, and he gain equal treatment for women. There have been many court cases since the enactment of the 14th amendment to change his country. The biggest court case was Roe versus Wade, this court case legalized abortion but before 1964, 25 states had already legalized abortion, California and Colorado were the first states to legalize abortion. In my opinion the 14th amendment suspended the 10th amendment. Constitutional scholars have argued with me that I am wrong. Most of the civil rights laws were passed using the 14th amendment, and my opinion civil rights laws were written to destroy the Constitution. O.J. Simpson was found innocent in a court of law, but they got however violating her civil rights, how could he violating her civil rights if a court of law said he was innocent.

  58. What can people do to restore liberty???? Mmmmmmmmm1776?
    Or hold up a sign that says "don't do that"
    Power is a spiritual thing and should be dealt with as such.
    Don't forget Gov. got too big and we must have the same hollow points to remind them we created them and to BACK OFF!!!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.