Constitutional Hypocrites

[Keith Broaders]

The Constitution mandates that when the legislatures of two thirds of the states request a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, Congress must call for the convention once 34 states have requested it.

If the requisite 34 states have applied for a convention, those individuals who oppose calling for an Article V Convention would suggest that in order to defend the Constitution we must ignore the provisions of Article V.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson stated clearly that when the government becomes abusive it is the right and the duty of the people to "alter or abolish it." The authors of the Constitution provided a means to alter the Constitution through the amendment process. They granted to Congress the authority to amend the Constitution, but they also provided a way for the states to amend the Constitution if the members of Congress failed to do so.

The authors of the Constitution knew that giving Congress a monopoly on the right to propose amendments was a bad idea. That is why they also granted the states the authority to propose amendments.

The system of checks and balances were written into the Constitution to protect the people from the abuse of power. When two thirds of the members of Congress wish to propose an amendment to the Constitution they are authorized to do so by the Constitution. When two thirds of the legislatures of the states wish to call forth a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution they also have the Constitutional right to do so.

Power when centralized is always more dangerous. Some claim holding an Article V Convention would be dangerous, but I would suggest that allowing Congress to have a monopoly on the amendment process is even more dangerous.

http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Amendments/071_cg_r_03369_1929_HL.JPG

http://www.quia.com/pages/libertytreeuniversity/page416

http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_applications_for_an_Arti...

[Eric R Rhodes]

Beautifully said Keith. I don't see where it says anything about administrative law in the Constitution as well. These matters of Constitutional conventions are best handled by the people and not the source of the problem, which is CONgress. The people are not the power they are without having regulatory authority over our elected officials. CONgress isn't to be trusted with that kind of power, and that's why it was written into  the Constitution the way it was done. It's that central government power you were writing about. It is always the most corrupting of power that the founders were trying to stop from forming to begin with.

Such attempts to by pass the legislative process by allowing a Judge, or an agent or agency to create law out of thin air by itself is UnConstitutional, where are the checks and balances in that? but it's done virtually everyday all across this country.

But to allow CONgress to try it's self by controlling and regulating a Constitutional convention is ludicrous. That's the point of such a Convention, to allow the people to regulate CONgress. This is the means and ways to do so. As it goes right now, I hope we are able to change which party is the majority in the Senate. We need to restore States rights once again and the true Common Law Grand Jury as it was originally was meant to be. The current grand jury system is a witch hunt with cherry picked jurors by the prosecution and Judges. The people are largely left out of this selection, the prosecution weeds out the jurors they don't think will render the decision the prosecution want's, this is  a violation of impartiality by it's self, and a sure sign of an out of balance court system.

A Judges proper roll is to act as a mediator, and not as a legislator, by passing into law a decision that then converts into what is known as case law. These decisions and the power to create law from the bench, is a corrupting form of power that the founders never intended to exist. Perhaps Robert knows of such constitutional authority, but he'll really have to prove that one hard. The problem is that most Americans really don't have the education on this topic as is so sorely needed, and therefore they lack the education necessary to remain in the seat of power that was intended by the founding fathers to begin with, and today we see what they tried to avoid so as make sure the people are to rule over the government as intended. 

The form of Government we created wasn't about hiring a bunch of professionals to rule over us, but quite the other way around. Term limits should be established as CONgress won't and can't be trusted to due this by them selves.

So I hold to two terms and they are out. We have always had that power and still do. If they won't self regulate, then we can and will do it for them.

[Robert]

Here are the articles I mentioned above, which show Congress as being granted a tremendous amount of power over a convention:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-brown/the-article-v-conventio...

https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-brown/congressional-report-va...

[Keith Broaders]

Who should decide on who and how the applications should be counted is a decision that should be made by the state legislatures and the people not the men and women in Congress that routinely violate the Constitution.

I would really appreciate your calling me at [phone] to discuss this issue.