An Article V Convention Would Harm the Republic

Richard D. Fry
November Patriots, Founder
General Counsel, Patriot Coalition
The Patriot Coalition

The John Hancock Committee’ Makes a Feeble Attempt to Answer the Question: “If the Federal Government Ignores the Current Constitution, Why Would They Adhere to an Amended Constitution?”

The John Hancock Committee for the States (JHC) gives numerous justification (excuses) for why the federal government cannot seem to follow the current constitution. (Again, failing to note the states are guiltily of such as well.) In short, JHC excuses could be summed up by saying the Framers were inexperienced, naive, simpletons who had no clue as to the (real) nature of mankind.

All of its excuses are anemic at best and some would be downright laughable if not involving such a serious matter as its proposed re-write of our federal Constitution, the firewall of our Liberty. These excuses count on the ignorance of the American citizens and the corruption of our public officers, who have taken a solemn oath to know and defend the Constitution.

Embedded in its deceptive assertions is its number one lie: that there is such a thing as a “Convention of States” under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Hancock says: “When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology.”

This is complete nonsense. The Framers were very aware of the nature of man and mankind’s inherent weaknesses, such as a lust for power and need to dominant over their fellow man. Many of the Framers were very well educated and very familiar with the history of governments going back millennia and familiar with the more contemporary political philosophy of the time such as that of John Locke.

Regarding trusting their fellow citizens in political office James Madison and Thomas Jefferson said:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
James Madison, Federalist No. 51 (1788)

“In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”

Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions (1798)

In speaking of one of the delegates, James Wilson, it was said:

“He is well acquainted with man, and understands all the passions that influence him…”

Does this sound like men who had confidence in their public servants to toe the line set down by the Constitution? The Framers knew that politicians would indeed try to get around the Constitution for their own purposes. And, they knew the formation of “factions” (political parties) would only make such corruption worse.

Jefferson advised :

“On every question of Construction [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning man be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

George Washington, in his farewell address as President, stated:

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by amendment in the way the Constitution designates. But let there be no changes by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

In fact, it did not take long for the usurpations to begin. Washington, as President , was advised by Thomas Jefferson (Secretary of State), James Madison and Edmund Randolph (Attorney General) that the creation of a national bank (privately directed) by Congress was unconstitutional. Such was being pushed by Alexander Hamilton(Secretary of Treasury). Washington did end up signing the charter for the bank, in part because it was set to automatically expire in twenty years.

President Adams violated the Constitution when he signed into law the Sedition Act of 1798. In response, the Kentucky (Jefferson) and the Virginia Resolves (Madison) were passed by their respective state legislatures and the upheaval around the Sedition Act resulted in the ” Revolution of 1800″ which swept Jefferson into the Presidency and many of his party members into office.

Jefferson knew he was violating the Constitution when he made, through James Madison, the Louisiana Purchase.

JHC admits its pretense in this regard when it says:

“Even though it is obvious to all reasonable Americans that the federal government is violating the original meaning of the Constitution, Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language.”

If such illegality is “obvious to all reasonable Americans” then our public servants are even more apt to be aware of their Constitutional violations. They simply do not care. Our public servants no longer fear the people, for whom they work, nor the God, in whose name they take their oath of Support.

The Second Amendment is a prime example of the folly of this assertion by JHC. It is twenty-seven words long and about as direct as one can get. It clearly says the federal government may not infringe on the people’s right to “keep and bear Arms”. Yet, since 1926, over 130 years after the Constitution took effect, the central government has been infringing on such right in a wholesale fashion. And, the states have been going along with this Constitutional violation.

Then JHC pretends to be a soothsayer when it declares:

” The language they [the re-writers] use for these [future] amendments will be unequivocal. There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be legitimately broken.”

How in the world can JHC possibly know this assertion to be true before a “convention” even starts? It is an absurd assertion.

JHC tells us our political system is broken and then tells us we must rely upon our political system to fix itself.

JHC gives us flimflam, doublespeak, and chicanery as usual.

It is “We the Peoples'” job to hold our public servants accountable. Until we do that no change in the constitution will do any good. Once we hold them accountable no change in the Constitution will be necessary.

Alex Jones now endorses an Article V Constitutional Convention

On the Alex Jones Show of 7/29/14 Alex interviewed NSA whistle blower William Binney. In the course of the interview Binney mentioned that his solution to stopping federal tyranny would be to hold an Article V convention. In his brief support for an Article V convention Binney made a number of erroneous statements.

First let’s review what Article V actually states:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Binney was under the impression that an Article V convention would be controlled by the states and completely independent from Congress. It would appear that Binney’s errant interpretation of an Article V convention has been shaped by the Convention of States (COS) project. (COS is a project of Citizens for Self Destruction.) Article V is clear that “Congress… shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments” after receiving applications from two thirds (or 34) of the States. Binney also claimed that if a COS was held such a convention could not only propose amendments but also ratify them at the same convention. Article V proscribes that after two thirds of the states submit a petition Congress would call the convention. At the convention amendments may be proposed but any proposed amendments would have to be ratified by three fourths (or 38) of the States or conventions of three fourths of the States. Congress would decide the mode of ratification.

Alex Jones admitted that he had previously opposed a Constitutional convention because it could be hijacked. Article V apologists take issue with calling an Article V convention a Constitutional convention. Their objection is an attempt to underplay the magnitude of such a convention which has never been held in our history. An Article V convention is by definition a Constitutional convention because its express purpose is to propose amendments to the Constitution. Article V does not limit the number or scope of amendments that could be proposed – Article V proponents denial of this fact helps to discredit their position.

Alex Jones is obviously frustrated with the corruption in DC that fosters tyranny. The solution is decidedly not an Article V convention for several reasons.  I’ll list a few.

1.) States currently have vast power in the Constitution to nullify and interpose against any and every federal law that lacks Constitutional authority. The 10th Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” States can pass laws that invalidate federal laws that are not Constitutional, that is, laws that do not conform to Article I Section 8, the enumerated powers of Congress which are very limited. For example, nothing is now stopping West Virginia or any other state from passing laws that permit coal burning power plants to continue operating or to even construct new coal burning power pants. Congress has no legitimate Constitutional mandate to make laws about the environment and the entire EPA lacks any Constitutional basis. Also consider the clarity of the Second amendment – all federal gun laws lack Constitutional authority yet no state has yet refused to submit to the BATFE and the law to license gun dealers and require a federal form to be completed when purchasing a firearm.

2.) The logical fallacy of trusting Congress to be involved in a process that is supposedly designed to limit the power of the federal government in general and Congress in particular. The vast majority of those in Congress are oath breakers – they openly violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution. There is no reason that the current occupants of Congress would immediately take their oaths to uphold the Constitution seriously if the Constitution was amended in a positive fashion. It’s as if Article V proponents think an Article V convention would have some mystical power to make corrupt oath breakers repent. The problem is not with the Constitution, it’s a moral problem with those in Congress and the federal government. Article V advocates resist answering a simple question, If Congress currently refuses to follow the Constitution why should we expect Congress to obey the Constitution if it’s amended?

3.) There is a very similar logical fallacy in trusting the current occupants of the state legislatures with an Article V convention. The vast majority of those in the state legislators are also oath breakers – they do not uphold their oaths to the federal Constitution. If those in the state legislatures did uphold their oaths the Constitution we would see many federal laws nullified with state laws interposing against their enforcement at the state level. For example if the GOP super majority in the NC General Assembly was not corrupt we would see the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) nullified and NC laws passed that would ensure Obamacare was rendered null and void in NC, such as arresting any federal government employee who attempted to enforce Obamacare in NC.

I think Alex Jones is sincere in having reversed his position to now endorse an Article V Con Con. Hopefully Alex will reconsider the implications of a Con Con. I would like to see Alex interview Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers about the implications of an Article V Con Con. Alex has interviewed Stewart numerous times in the past but has yet to discuss Article V with him. Another guest who would provide detailed information critiquing an Article V Con Con is Jeff Lewis of the Patriot Coalition. Jeff has worked tirelessly in defending the Constitution at the federal and state levels.  Activist Publius Huldah would also provide an excellent opportunity to hear from a bona fide Constitutional expert who has rejected the arguments for an Article V Con Con.

Boehner Rules Out Using Congressional Powers To Arrest Lois Lerner For Contempt


Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner refused to consider using the House’s constitutional authority to arrest disgraced IRS official Lois Lerner for being in contempt of Congress, noting it’s never been used before and should be left to Attorney General Eric Holder.

On Sunday, Boehner spoke with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo about next steps in the investigation into the alleged targeting of conservative nonprofit groups by the IRS. As head of the tax revenue service’s nonprofit division at the time, Lerner has repeatedly refused to testify before lawmakers — leading to last Wednesday’s vote holding her in contempt of Congress.

“The contempt charge has gone to the attorney general,” Boehner explained, “and it’s up to the attorney general, Eric Holder, to prosecute this, and to assign someone to prosecute the case. Now, will he do it? We don’t know. But the ball is in his court.”

But Bartiromo noted that the House has its own powers to arrest those found in contempt of Congress.

“There’s a provision in the Constitution that has never been used,” Boehner admitted. “And uh, and so — that’s uh — I’m not quite sure that we want to go down that path . . . It’s never been used.”

The Speaker couldn’t explain why the provision has laid dormant — “I’m not the historian here” — but said he’s “not sure that it’s an appropriate way to go about this.”

“It’s up to Eric Holder to do his job,” Boehner asserted.

TSA Harasses Police Chief – Placed On Administrative Leave – Told To Disband Entire Police Department

Vincent Finelli

28 January 2014, 23:21 CST

Updated 29 January 2014 at 221:54 CST

By Vincent Finelli

Police Chief Shane Harger of the Jemez Springs, NM Police Department was placed on administrative leave and ordered to disband his police department today.

Harger returned from the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association Convention on Monday, January 27, 2014 with a sense of knowing that, he as well as 38 other peace officers, shared the commitment to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from enemies both foreign and domestic. He and the other 38 men and women signed the Resolution of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (see below).

The following morning, Harger was informed by Sheriff Douglas C. Wood of Sandoval County, New Mexico, that Harger was to dismantle the Jamez Springs Police Department.

Jemez Springs, NM is a tourist destination. With a population of 252, the police department enjoys ten part-time officers and volunteers with many working about 8 hours per month.

The story unfolds: Traveling by commercial airlines from Albuquerque, NM to LasVegas,NV, Harger was asked by TSA to show his credentials. Minutes later a man flashed a badge claiming to be a federal agent (agency unknown) also demanding to see Harger’s credentials.

Harger was told that he was a person of interest, and the federal agent wanted to know where he was going and why. Bear in mind, no one is required to provide this information under these circumstances.

Harger said that the federal agent told him that the he, the federal agent, was paid to be suspicious of everyone.

Harger informed the federal agent that he was traveling to attend the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association Convention in LasVegas.

Harger was detained for thirty-five minutes – his detention was video recorded but not made available to Harger.

Link to Vincent Finelli’s radio broadcast of January 29, 2014 describing the event: 

Link to Sam Bushman’s radio broadcast of January 29, 2014 describing the event:

Harger was eventually released from detention and was allowed to board the airplane.

No charges were filed against Harger.

I met Chief Harger at the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association Convention and was interested in the events of his travel. He agreed to be on the air with me on to tell the story of his detention as a person of interest who was attending a Constitutional Sheriffs convention. But before going live on global radio, Harger was fired as well as the rest of the police department.

Despite having received a meritorious commendation from the Mayor of Jemez Springs on January 22, 2014, it seems that no one in the village government is willing to come to the assistance of Harger. It appears that Harger’s stance to defend and uphold the Constitution has put him and his entire department of ten part-time and volunteers out of business.

Harger has received no reprimands, no correspondence of wrong doing, and nothing indicating that any of his actions were not in accordance with the law.

Harger stated to me that his department was ordered by Sandoval County, NM, Sheriff Douglas C. Wood to disband because of Harger’s political affiliations, specifically the CSPOA headed by founder Sheriff Richard Mack. I called the Sheriff’s Office to discuss this with Sheriff Wood, but was directed to his secretary’s voice mail. Here is the public number that I called – 505-867-7526.

I was at the convention and I never saw nor heard anyone say nor do anything that was a violation of any law. The CSPOA convention was an assembly of peace-loving Americans who just wanted to uphold their oath of office, that being to support and defend the US Constitution and Bill of Rights for all of us, We The People.

Chief of Police, Shane Harger is standing up to defend We The People, I trust that you will stand up to defend and support him. Anything less is unacceptable.


CSPOA Jan 2014 Resolution

The following was drafted at a meeting of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) on Jan 24, 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada and approved by the members present.  We encourage all sheriffs, peace officers and those in public office to sign with us. We also welcome the signatures of all other U.S. citizens.

To add your name, download a printable version, print it, sign it, scan it and submit it here.

Of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association

Pursuant to the powers and duties bestowed upon us by our citizens, the undersigned do hereby resolve that any Federal officer, agent, or employee, regardless of supposed congressional authorization, is required to obey and observe limitations consisting of the enumerated powers as detailed within Article 1 Section 8 of the U S Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

The people of these united States are, and have a right to be, free and independent, and these rights are derived from the “Law of Nature and nature’s God.” As such, they must be free from infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, unreasonable searches and seizures, capricious detainments and every other natural right whether enumerated or not, pursuant to the 9th amendment.

We further reaffirm that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” (10th amendment)

Furthermore, we maintain that no agency established by the U S Congress can develop its own policies or regulations which supersede the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, nor does the executive branch have the power to make law, overturn law or set aside law.

Therefore, in order to protect the American people, BE IT RESOLVED THAT,

The following abuses will not be allowed or tolerated:

1) Registration of personal firearms under any circumstances.

2) Confiscation of firearms without probable cause, due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

3) Audits or searches of a citizen’s personal affairs or finances without probable cause, and due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

4) Inspections of person or property without probable cause and constitutionally compliant warrants as required by the 4th Amendment and issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

5) The detainment or search of citizens without probable cause and proper due process compliance, or the informed consent of the citizen.

6) Arrests with continued incarcerations without charges and complete due process, including, but not limited to public and speedy jury trials, in a court of state or local jurisdiction.

7) Domestic utilization of our nation’s military or federal agencies operating under power granted under the laws of war against American citizens.

8) Arrest of citizens or seizure of persons or property without first notifying and obtaining the express consent of the local sheriff.

that the undersigned Sheriffs, Peace Officers, and other Public Servants, do hereby denounce any acts or agencies which promote the aforementioned practices. All actions by the Federal Government and its agents will conform strictly and implicitly with the principles expressed within the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.

There is no greater obligation or responsibility of any government officer than to protect the rights of the people. Thus, any conduct contrary to the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights will be dealt with as criminal activity.

Join us now! download a printable version, print it, sign it, scan it and submit it here.

Top Constitutional Experts: Obama Is Worse than Nixon

Originally posted on

Objective Analysis: Obama Versus Nixon

In the wake of the twin scandals of the IRS targeting conservative groups and the Department of Justice spying on AP reporters, the comparisons between Obama and Nixon are everywhere.

But what do experts say?

Former New York Times general counsel James Goodale – who represented the paper during its Pentagon Papers fight with the Nixon administration – said in an interview yesterday that Obama is worse than Nixon when it comes to press freedoms. And see this.

Former constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald noted last year:

We supposedly learned important lessons from the abuses of power of the Nixon administration, and then of the Bush administration: namely, that we don’t trust government officials to exercise power in the dark, with no judicial oversight, with no obligation to prove their accusations. Yet now we hear exactly this same mentality issuing from Obama, his officials and defenders to justify a  far more extreme power than either Nixon or Bush dreamed of asserting: he’s only killing The Bad Citizens, so there’s no reason to object!

Jonathan Turley – perhaps the top constitutional law expert in the United States (and a liberal) – writes:

The painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.

Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an “imperial presidency” with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments. Consider a few examples:

Warrantless surveillance

Nixon’s use of warrantless surveillance led to the creation of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). But the reform turned out to be more form than substance. The secret court turned “probable cause” into a meaningless standard, virtually guaranteeing any surveillance the government wanted. After hundreds of thousands of applications over decades, only a couple have ever been denied.

Last month, the Supreme Court crushed any remaining illusions regarding FISA when it sided with the Obama administration in ruling that potential targets of such spying had to have proof they were spied upon before filing lawsuits, even if the government has declared such evidence to be secret. That’s only the latest among dozens of lawsuits the administration has blocked while surveillance expands exponentially.

Unilateral military action

Nixon’s impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress’ sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. In the Libyan “mission,” Obama announced that only he had the inherent authority to decide what is a “war” and that so long as he called it something different, no congressional approval or even consultation was necessary. He proceeded to bomb a nation’s capital, destroy military units and spend more than a billion dollars in support of one side in a civil war.

Kill lists

Nixon ordered a burglary to find evidence to use against Daniel Ellsberg, who gave the famed Pentagon Papers to the press, and later tried to imprison him. Ellsberg was later told of a secret plot by the White House “plumbers” to “incapacitate” him in a physical attack. It was a shocking revelation. That’s nothing compared with Obama’s assertion of the right to kill any U.S. citizen without a charge, let alone conviction, based on his sole authority. A recently leaked memo argues that the president has a right to kill a citizen even when he lacks “clear evidence (of) a specific attack” being planned.

Attacking whistle-blowers

Nixon was known for his attacks on whistle-blowers. He used the Espionage Act of 1917 to bring a rare criminal case against Ellsberg. Nixon was vilified for the abuse of the law. Obama has brought twice as many such prosecutions as all prior presidents combined [and see this]. While refusing to prosecute anyone for actual torture, the Obama administration has prosecuted former CIA employee John Kiriakou for disclosing the torture program.

Other Nixonesque areas include Obama’s overuse of classification laws and withholding material from Congress. There are even missing tapes. In the torture scandal, CIA officials admitted to destroying tapes that they feared could be used against them in criminal cases. Of course, Nixon had missing tapes, but Rose Mary Woods claimed to have erased them by mistake, as opposed to current officials who openly admit to intentional destruction.

Obama has not only openly asserted powers that were the grounds for Nixon’s impeachment, but he has made many love him for it. More than any figure in history, Obama has been a disaster for the U.S. civil liberties movement. By coming out of the Democratic Party and assuming an iconic position, Obama has ripped the movement in half. Many Democrats and progressive activists find themselves unable to oppose Obama for the authoritarian powers he has assumed. It is not simply a case of personality trumping principle; it is a cult of personality.

Long after Watergate, not only has the presidency changed. We have changed. We have become accustomed to elements of a security state such as massive surveillance and executive authority without judicial oversight. We have finally answered a question left by Benjamin Franklin in 1787, when a Mrs. Powel confronted him after the Constitutional Convention and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His chilling response: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

We appear to have grown weary of the republic and traded it for promises of security from a shining political personality. Somewhere, Nixon must be wondering how it could have been this easy.

Nixon’s “Enemies List” is famous, and the former head of the National Security Agency’s global digital data gathering program says that Obama also has an enemies list … which has been used to take down a wide variety of people, including the head of the CIA. The Washington Post’s Ed Rogers notes:

Obama doesn’t need a traditional Nixonian enemies list. In the digital age, with the Obama machine’s much-celebrated technological capabilities, the president can sort his enemies by keywords.

You’ve heard about the AP spying scandal, and the head of the Department of Justice implies that the government has spied on many other reporters.

Reporters who criticize those in power are being smeared by the government and targeted for arrest (and see this).

Indeed, the Obama administration is treating real reporters as potential terrorists.

After Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and others sued the government to enjoin the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans – the judge asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about bad guys. The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge.

Wikileaks’ head Julian Assange could face the death penalty for his heinous crime of leaking whistleblower information which make those in power uncomfortable … i.e. being a reporter.

Daniel Ellsberg notes that Obama’s claimed power to indefinitely detain people without charges or access to a lawyer or the courts is a power that even King George didn’t claim.  Former judge and adjunct professor of constitutional law Andrew Napolitano points out that Obama’s claim that he can indefinitely detain prisoners even after they are acquitted of their crimes is a power that even Hitler and Stalin didn’t claim.

Indeed, Obama has turned America into the most spied upon nation in world history, and has rolled back liberties to the time of the enactment of the Magna Carta in 1215.

Is the solution to federal tyranny a Con Con?

Rocco J. Piserchia

There are many reasons to reject all calls for an Article 5 amendments convention or a Constitutional Convention (Con Con).  I’ll list four arguments.

1.) There is no way to limit the scope of an Article 5 convention once it begins.  Anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken.  The language of Article 5 does not include any limitations to the number and type of amendments that could be adopted,

“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…”

2.) Consider the implications of how the original federal Constitution was formed – it was illegally adopted.  The Philadelphia meetings that drafted the Constitution were only authorized by Congress to amend the Articles of Confederation but they produced a completely new compact.  “That it be recommended to the States composing the Union that a convention of representatives from the said States respectively be held at on for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the United States of America and reporting to the United States in Congress assembled and to the States respectively such alterations and amendments of the said Articles of Confederation as the representatives met in such convention shall judge proper and necessary to render them adequate to the preservation and support of the Union “

The Articles of Confederation also established a perpetual union that could only be dissolved by Congress and the unanimous consent of all the states that ratified it.  Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation reads, “…And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State…”  Only 9 states were required to ratify the Constitution while all 13 were required to abolish the Articles of Confederation.  Furthermore Congress was required to first alter the Articles of Confederation followed by the ratification of 13 states but Congress never consented. “Congress unanimously left the decision to the states, without any recommendation for or against adoption.”

So if an Article 5 convention is convened we should expect the very real possibility that the Constitution would be replaced by a completely different compact.

3.)  It’s beyond unrealistic to think that the current occupants of Congress as well as the current occupants of the 50 state legislatures would consciously choose to limit the power of the federal government and expand the power of the state governments.  Today we have the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” However no state yet has nullified and interposed against the federal government to completely ban the PPACA  (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act a.k.a. Obamacare).  If the states refuse to use the Constitutional authority they now have under the 10th Amendment why should they be expected to utilize any new amendments?

4.) The federal government today does not even remotely reflect the federal government as expressed in the Constitution.  In other words the vast majority of all three branches of the federal government refuse to obey the Constitution in its current form – the federal government is no longer legitimate.The President is a de facto dictator.  Congress continually passes laws outside the bounds of the limited delegated powers of Article 1 section 8.  And the Supreme Court as well as federal courts violate their jurisdiction beyond those areas specified in the Constitution. Logic dictates that there is no reason to think that merely changing the Constitution will result in corrupt people obeying it.  The President, the vast majority of those in Congress, the Supreme Court Justices and federal court judges are currently oath breakers –they do not honor their oath to defend the Constitution.  Changing the Compact will not mystically result in their Constitutional repentance.

It’s very disturbing to see how many prominent people are advocating that a Constitutional convention should be held.  Mark Levin supports it and is actively promoting this idea with his book The Liberty AmendmentsLevin has no Constitutional credibility since he completely rejects the validity of the states now using the 10th Amendment to nullify and interpose against federal laws that are not Constitutional.

Senator Tom Coburn has called for a Con Con.

Senator Rand Paul wants to amend the Constitution.

Constitutional historian Kevin Gutzman supports a Con Con. “I finally conceded, if the gigantic inertial force of 200 years of jurisprudential and political tradition could be overcome, we might actually use a remedy the Founders gave us: Article V. Via Article V of the Constitution, we could perform an end-run around the legal establishment and the self-serving Washington elite and restore decentralized, republican government in America…Thus, on April 9, 2010, Randy Barnett, the late Tony Blankley, Bruce Fein, and I participated in an Article V Amending Convention Town Hall on The Mike Church Show. (Here’s the transcript.) In the course of that two-hour event, the leading libertarian legal academic of his generation, a prominent Republican political operative, a one-time top official in the Reagan justice department, and Your Humble Historian touched on every question one could have about the unused portion of Article V of the Constitution.”

Robert Natelson who authored the book The Original Constitution supports a Con Con which he and other advocates now insist on calling an Article 5 convention.

I asked Tom Woods if he supported Mark’s Levin’s call for a convention to amend the US Constitution.  Surprisingly Tom Woods was open to holding a Constitutional Convention. Considering his knowledge of US history  and the Constitution I expected him to oppose a Con Con.

I interviewed Mike Church when he was at Nullify Now in Raleigh on 10/19/13.  I asked him if he supported the calls for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) since Mark Levin and others were supporting the call for a Con Con.  Unfortunately he did support it even though he admitted that an Article 5 convention could not be limited in its scope, i.e., there would be no limitations to what an Article 5 convention could address.

Mike Maharrey, Communications Director of the Tenth Amendment Center, was interviewed at Nullify Now in Raleigh NC on 10/19/13.  I asked him if he supported the call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) which is being advocated by Mark Levin, among others.  Mike said he was neutral about the idea of amending the Constitution but he expressed healthy skepticism as to the potential benefits of amending the Constitution when the Constitution in its current form is ignored by the federal government.