View Full Version : Convention of States Project
The COS Project is about to begin a brand new series of free, interactive "Tele-Townhalls" entitled Article V: The Real Deal. The Real Deal will walk you through the Convention of States process in plain, simple English and answer some of the most common questions about Article V before, during, and after the convention.
To sign up, click here (http://email.geniusmailer.com/ct/17459166:18762998024:m:1:572155866:86AD8D6745E54DC 9436FDD8F233A3B21:r).
Part I – Before the Convention: Mythbusting
Michael Farris, head of the COS Project, will kick things off on February 3 at 8pm EST by doing some myth busting. A number of objections have been raised against a Convention of States, and Michael Farris would like to respond to a few of them.
Part II – During the Convention: We Know the Rules
On February 13 at 8pm EST Prof. Rob Natelson, leading expert on Article V, will explain how a Convention of States would operate based on previous interstate conventions as well as legal precedent. Rob will also be answering questions on amendment ratification.
Part III – After the Convention: A Vision for the Future
Finally, on February 20 at 8pm EST, Mark Meckler, President and Founder of Citizen’s for Self-Governance, will paint a picture of America after we hold a Convention of States.
At the end of each presentation, you will have the opportunity to ask questions of the speaker through our interactive Tele-Townhall service.
Click here (http://email.geniusmailer.com/ct/17459166:18762998024:m:1:572155866:86AD8D6745E54DC 9436FDD8F233A3B21:r) and follow the on-screen instructions to sign up for Article V: The Real Deal.
Learn | How Our Proposal is Different (http://conventionofstates.com/learn-convention-states-0)
The Founders Gave us a Solution: A Convention of the States
Two goals separate our plan from all other Article V organizations:
1. We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment. Instead of calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), we want to call a convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.
2. We believe the grassroots is the key to calling a successful convention. The goal is to build a political operation in a minimum of 40 states, getting 100 people to volunteer in at least 75% of the state legislative district (that's 3,000 districts). We believe this is very doable. Only through the support of the American people will this project have a chance to succeed.
More at the link.
Please enjoy this free, comprehensive, step-by-step plan to bring the “Convention of States Project” into reality. This 24 page document (http://conventionofstates.com/gethandbookpopup/index.php?width=720&height=500&iframe=true) will show you how to stop the runaway power of the ever-encroaching federal government.
The COS Project empowers state legislators to propose amendments to the Constitution that would curb the abuses of Washington, DC.
This is an “emergency cord” the founders gave us in case the federal government grew too large.
Guess what?
The federal government is enormous, corrupt, and out-of-control. Download NOW to get our nation back!
How is this info getting disseminated, Bro?
There is the web site (http://conventionofstates.com/), the Tele-Townhalls in the first post, and little elves like me who've signed up to volunteer. Volunteers visit state legislators and lobby for them to support States Rights. We know what the conservatives want, but the liberals (at the state level) are concerned about unfunded mandates, over burdening regulations, and extremely concerned with the invasion of privacy by the Federal government.
In sales you need to know your product and your customer. Research the legislator, get your pitch down, war game the counters, and sell it!
There is the web site (http://conventionofstates.com/), the Tele-Townhalls in the first post, and little elves like me who've signed up to volunteer. Volunteers visit state legislators and lobby for them to support States Rights. We know what the conservatives want, but the liberals (at the state level) are concerned about unfunded mandates, over burdening regulations, and extremely concerned with the invasion of privacy by the Federal government.
In sales you need to know your product and your customer. Research the legislator, get your pitch down, war game the counters, and sell it!
Are you running into much Obamaphobia?
MR2 says:
"1. We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment. Instead of calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), we want to call a convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government."
It doesn't work that way. Once you open up that "Pandora's Box" everything is on the table - including the ability to re-write the entire Constitution.
Phyllis Schlafly (among others) has written about the dangers of an Article V Convention. Here are links to some articles you might wish to consider before jumping on the Con-Con bandwagon:
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/nov07/07-11-21.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/dec08/08-12-19.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2010/apr10/10-04-09.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/feb11/11-02-25.html
(Just pause the video and read the article)
http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/column/article-v-future.html
http://www.capwiz.com/eagleforum/issues/alert/?alertid=63020926
There ARE real dangers involved; and with what we have in Congress and in so many state legislatures at this time, IMO, no way in HELL would I trust our God-given rights to the whims of the likes of these. Damned few are those we could trust to do what's right for America and its people.
Phyllis Schlafly (among others) has written about the dangers of an Article V Convention. Here are links to some articles you might wish to consider before jumping on the Con-Con bandwagon:
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/nov07/07-11-21.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/dec08/08-12-19.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2010/apr10/10-04-09.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/feb11/11-02-25.html
(Just pause the video and read the article)
http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/column/article-v-future.html
http://www.capwiz.com/eagleforum/issues/alert/?alertid=63020926
There ARE real dangers involved; and with what we have in Congress and in so many state legislatures at this time, IMO, no way in HELL would I trust our God-given rights to the whims of the likes of these. Damned few are those we could trust to do what's right for America and its people.
Stobey, You got that exactly right. We con't need a con con. What needs to happen is all the bums in office right now should be removed. :munchin
MR2
This isn't a Constitutional Convention correct? There is a difference between a Con Con as Ms. Schlafley is talking about, and a Convention of States.
This is what Mark Levin is talking about correct?
There ARE real dangers involved; and with what we have in Congress and in so many state legislatures at this time, IMO, no way in HELL would I trust our God-given rights to the whims of the likes of these. Damned few are those we could trust to do what's right for America and its people.
So, you are perfectly happy with one judge being able to change the constitution, but not a majority of the states. This is not a Constitutional Convention! It is no different than the other, Congress initiated, amendment process. The Congress will not propose the amendments that are needed to fix the problem because they will not limit their ability to BE the problem.
That said, I believe that we've flown too far outside of the envelope to recover. And the passengers don't give a damn.
Pat
So, you are perfectly happy with one judge being able to change the constitution, but not a majority of the states. This is not a Constitutional Convention! It is no different than the other, Congress initiated, amendment process. The Congress will not propose the amendments that are needed to fix the problem because they will not limit their ability to BE the problem.
That said, I believe that we've flown too far outside of the envelope to recover. And the passengers don't give a damn.
Pat
Amen. If there was only one amendment possible it would be term limits for elected officials. There is no way that congress will propose that, only a grass roots, by the states movement can make that happen. Next would be term limits for judges.
Just my .02
from Phyllis Schlafly's article, "Mischief-Making About the Constitution":
Current advocates of an Article V convention seem to think they can get the ball rolling by having a convention called by the states. Of course, the states can have a jolly get-together anytime they want, but a “convention of states” has no power to amend the Constitution. Only a convention called by Congress has that power.
Article V doesn’t give any power to the states to propose constitutional amendments, or to decide which amendments will be considered (or not considered) by the convention. Article V doesn’t give any special power to the courts to correct what does or does not happen.
Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is up for grabs. Advocates of an Article V convention can hope and predict, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true. And remember, there is no consensus among the various Article V groups about which constitutional planks they really want. Imagine Democratic and Republican conventions meeting in the same hall and trying to agree on constitutional changes!
http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/psr/sept13.html
PSM said:
"That said, I believe that we've flown too far outside of the envelope to recover. And the passengers don't give a damn."
I do agree with you there. Sadly, I believe that this country has gone way past the "turnaround point". 99% of what our "federal" government has done for years has been, strictly speaking, "unconstitutional". The bloated bureaucracy of Leviathan, with the EPA, HUD, DofEd, DHS, and all of the others are unconstitutional. The billions paid out in "foreign aid", with no input from the American citizen, is unconstitutional.
The absolute refusal of our federal government to secure our borders (think Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion...") is unconstitutional. When we have for years been subject to 1 million or more aliens either crossing our borders illegally or overstaying "tourist" and "student" visas, I would say that we have a real problem. Gee, just what part of "invasion" don't these people understand?
Unfortunately, it would appear that there are those who do not like this nation as it was founded, and the laws upon which it was founded; the first presumption being that we had certain unalienable God-given rights that are not subject to negotiation or arbitration by the State. This is one of the major things that the collectivist minds wish to change. If it can be drilled into the heads of many that there is no God, well than you cannot have any God-given rights now, can you?
I'm afraid that we are in the end-game of a particularly nefarious plan. I'm generally not in favor of revolutions; but it would seem that those who wish to remain free in the sovereign United States handed down to us by our forefathers may have little choice. A free America - one that remains in touch with our history, unadulterated by those who would inculcate a hatred and disdain for our Founding Fathers and the nation they created - stands in the way of the "New World Order" charlatans; and efforts have been underway for many years to change that.
"The Council on Foreign Relations co-sponsors an assembly Rethinking America's Security: Beyond Cold War to New World Order which is attended by 65 prestigious members of government, labor, academia, the media, military, and the professions from nine countries. Later, several of the conference participants joined some 100 other world leaders for another closed door meeting of the Bilderberg Society in Baden Baden, Germany. The Bilderbergers also exert considerable clout in determining the foreign policies of their respective governments. While at that meeting, David Rockefeller -- co-founder (with Zbigniew Brzezinski) of the Trilateral Commission -- said in a speech:
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination [read as 'democracy'] practiced in past centuries."
from Phyllis Schlafly's article, "Mischief-Making About the Constitution"l[/url]
While I admire Mrs. Schlafly's past accomplishments, she's older than Mark Levin's father.
Something will be done, make no mistake about that. If not this, then what? As I said before, I think that we are too late to the dance to choose the prettiest girl. ;)
Pat
Snaquebite
02-04-2014, 05:31
If you have not read Publius Huldah you should. She has a great grasp of the constitution.
Regarding the Convention of States.
Propaganda And The Conspiracy against Our Constitution
By Publius Huldah
The “Convention of States” (COS) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) page contains 989 words – none of them true – except for these which appear in the first paragraph:
“The federal government is spending this country into the ground … It’s time American citizens took a stand and made a legitimate effort to curb the power … of the federal government.”
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/propaganda-and-the-conspiracy-against-our-constitution/
MR2
This isn't a Constitutional Convention correct? There is a difference between a Con Con as Ms. Schlafley is talking about, and a Convention of States.
This is what Mark Levin is talking about correct?
Correct. There is no such thing as a ConCon except in the rhetoric of the opposition and the uninformed. I too was uninformed and had the same concerns voiced here. In fact I believe I voiced them on this very Forum the last two times it came up.
Stobey and pcfixer, I would ask you both to go to the Convention of States site (http://conventionofstates.com/), download and read the simple handbook and then return with any VALID concerns or questions.
Thank you MT & SQ, you get it!
David Barton has come out in support of the CoS. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/05/another-big-name-just-officially-announced-their-support-for-a-convention-of-states/
The Georgia Senate passed the Convention of States application by a vote of 37-16 (http://email.geniusmailer.com/ct/17523903:18809162650:m:1:572155866:FC70998597C4B3D BCF53E9F812FDB855:r), becoming the first state legislative body to do so.
The Virginia House Rules Committee also passed the COS application by a vote of 9-6 (http://email.geniusmailer.com/ct/17523904:18809162650:m:1:572155866:FC70998597C4B3D BCF53E9F812FDB855:r).
On Monday, thousands of people listened to Michael Farris respond to common Article V objections in Article V: The Real Deal, Pt. 1 (http://email.geniusmailer.com/ct/17523905:18809162650:m:1:572155866:FC70998597C4B3D BCF53E9F812FDB855:r). (It’s not too late to sign up for parts two and three! (http://email.geniusmailer.com/ct/17523906:18809162650:m:1:572155866:FC70998597C4B3D BCF53E9F812FDB855:r))
How many states have it up for a vote?
Badger52
02-06-2014, 14:35
MR2, thanks. Downloaded; on the nightstand for absorption.
(side note relocated to JJ_BPK's testimony thread)
Stiletto11
02-07-2014, 16:04
They are operating under the "Emergency" so are they going to eliminate it and go back to a constitutional republic? Can't see how that would happen especially when they have a 94% interest in the "Fed."
The Reaper
02-07-2014, 21:04
I worry about unanticpated consequences with second and third order effects.
TR
I worry about unanticpated consequences with second and third order effects.
TR
Aye, I too. Again, have you read the handbook? Reading that and listening to the first podcast should alleviate those fears.
Gov. Abbott of Texas is now on board. If you Google it, it sounds like he's trying to burn the Constitution.
The Dallas Morning News originally said that he was calling for a Constitutional Convention. They later edited the headline to read a Convention of the States.
Those trying to destroy the Constitution are the ones using "Constitutional
Convention" to scare the sheep. And it's working.
Article 5 includes BOTH methods of amending the Constitution allowing that States also have the right and responsibility of overseeing our liberty.
While the right thing to do, I fear that it's too late.
Mark Levin's proposals: http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44154&highlight=Levin
Pat
atticus finch
01-09-2016, 10:31
Correct. There is no such thing as a ConCon except in the rhetoric of the opposition and the uninformed. I too was uninformed and had the same concerns voiced here. In fact I believe I voiced them on this very Forum the last two times it came up.
Stobey and pcfixer, I would ask you both to go to the Convention of States site (http://conventionofstates.com/), download and read the simple handbook and then return with any VALID concerns or questions.
Thank you MT & SQ, you get it!
The question in my mind is, what is going to enforce this or make a change?
Right now a good part of the problem is fedgov either literally ignoring the law and suffering no consequences for doing so or using the law wrongfully against the individual despite the law having provisions for there being consequences for doing so.
More laws will change what when current law is supposed to prevent the same of what this is supposed to prevent or change?
This shouldn't be taken as saying this attempt is BS and therefore worthless, I'm open to any possibilities which provide a mechanism for stopping what is going on. However more laws don't seem to be the answer when current law is designed to do the same yet has failed. And the reason for that doesn't get fully addressed by this.
I do like several of Levine's proposals, the idea of making tax day on the day before elections? I would love to see that happen, that alone I suspect would change a lot of voting.
The bureacracies? Rather than focusing on the funding for them or things such as that. I'd rather see any regulations they attempt to impose have no authority, which means the individual has no legal obligation to abide by them, unless or until the regulations have been put to constitutional test.
If that test consists of a lawsuit or a courtcase, that also happens at no cost to the individual, it is paid out of that bureacracies budget and no action is taken against the individual nor are they legally obligated to abide by any regulation until that regulation has been litigated as legitimate.
Right now fedgov has the power, not the legitimate authority, to essentially flout the law and get away with it or literally change the law at whim. Also the current status-quo does not address the issue of whether or not the individual has the financial means to stand up for thier rights. Right now you only have what rights or protections under the law you can afford to pay an attorney for. More law isn't the entire answer.
CloseDanger
01-09-2016, 21:47
Mark Levin and his plan - Liberty Amendments (PDF) (http://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2015/04/LibertyAmendmentsCh1.pdf) is the standard bearer.
He has been at this the longest and introduced it.
He knows more about the Constitution than anyone.
Article 5 Arena, He introduced. A limited list that is agreed upon before even opening day.
It is agreed upon and done. There is no "convention".
agreed, opened, closed, Amended into Our Constitution with 2/3 vote by States.
This is what should be pursued. If you keep introducing different plans, you get nowhere.
Please read it. He is the real deal.
Unique Calling
01-25-2016, 10:16
While I absolutely appreciate that there are still people working towards the goal of restraining our federal government, and doing it through legal means, I have the same concerns as atticus finch. Without a clear means of enforcing written law, much of this becomes purely academic.
I will read the handbook, but I am pretty familiar with at least Mark Levine's proposal. It seems to me that our real and last option to quell this (federal) beast - is the refusal by individual states to follow unconstitutional mandates. This includes executive orders, unconstitutional laws passed by congress, and illegitimate judicial decrees. If just one state has enough elected officials (state government) who are willing to stand up to the feds and say "Not Here," a domino effect could potentially result (with other states).
The problem (one of many), is that ALL of the states currently receive money from the beast, making it politically 'impossible' for these state officials to denounce the hand that feeds. The hard part, IMO, would be getting enough state officials elected - that are willing to be one term reps, to REFUSE the "subsidies" and other money from the federal government. From this standpoint, the state would then have the authority to stand up to the bullies in D.C.
This could work, but there would need to be enough grass roots people willing to run for office with this as the goal, and then follow through in their first term. Not impossible, but obviously an enormous challenge.
The difference with this approach, is that a state has the enforcement mechanism to be able to back up their stance. Though the feds have the military and various federal LEOs, I can't imagine that they would be able to pull a Waco-style standoff against an entire state (including LEOs, the People, and possible the ARNG). That seems politically impossible, unless they go nuts and get NATO to come and "help." (many crazy scenarios are possible, I suppose)
A friend of mine played a key role in disseminating this as THE option, and has dubbed it the "Coolidge Project." (After Calvin Coolidge)
More info at:
http://coolidgeproject.us/
On a side note, this friend has spoken with Mark Levine on this in person, but it appeared that Levine was not interested in investigating further. That was a let-down, as I recall Levin stating repeatedly on the radio that he is "open to any suggestions," (as we MUST do something to stop this beast) - complete paraphrase, but he said it many times.
I am no longer in support of using Article V in restraint of our current government.
On a side note, this friend has spoken with Mark Levine on this in person, but it appeared that Levine was not interested in investigating further. That was a let-down, as I recall Levin stating repeatedly on the radio that he is "open to any suggestions," (as we MUST do something to stop this beast) - complete paraphrase, but he said it many times.
Mark Levin (no "e") is not just a talk show host, he also runs the Landmark Legal Foundation, editor-in-chief of Conservative Review, and writes books. When he said that he is "open to suggestions" he didn't necessarily mean that people should call his show and he'd run with it. It's up to each organization to do their own legwork and he may or may not sign on to their plan if it gains momentum.
Pat
I am no longer in support of using Article V in restraint of our current government.
Why? :confused:
Pat
Unique Calling
01-25-2016, 20:32
Please forgive the mispelling PSM,
I will say, that in general, and until recently, I have been a fan of Levin. I know that I cannot validate this beyond the link that I posted, but this friend of mine is a brilliant conservative mind. He genuinely had hopes that Mark would see the validity of the mission set forth by the Coolidge project. That didn't turn out, but I have my doubts that it was due to a lack of practicality. Be that as it may, I agree with you that each group/movement is responsible for spreading their ideas and organizing action towards their (respective) objectives.
Honestly, it put a bad taste in the mouth, but I don't doubt Mark's fidelity to the Constitution by any means. He is obviously a scholar on the subject and has put his money where his mouth is.
I still believe that reaffirmation or new amendments won't matter if there is no enforcement arm behind it. Politicians will do what they can get away with. Our president has firmly proven that to be the case.
Respect and Regards...