Convention of States Project

[MR2]

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.

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 and follow the on-screen instructions to sign up for Article V: The Real Deal.

[MR2]

Learn | How Our Proposal is Different
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.

[MR2]

Please enjoy this free, comprehensive, step-by-step plan to bring the “Convention of States Project” into reality. This 24 page document 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!

[Dusty]

How is this info getting disseminated, Bro?

[MR2]

There is the web site, 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!

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by MR2

There is the web site, 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?

[Stobey]

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/200.../07-11-21.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/200.../08-12-19.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/201.../10-04-09.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/201.../11-02-25.html
(Just pause the video and read the article)
http://www.eagleforum.org/publicatio...-v-future.html
http://www.capwiz.com/eagleforum/iss...ertid=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.

[pcfixer]

Originally Posted by Stobey

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/200.../07-11-21.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/200.../08-12-19.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/201.../10-04-09.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/201.../11-02-25.html
(Just pause the video and read the article)
http://www.eagleforum.org/publicatio...-v-future.html
http://www.capwiz.com/eagleforum/iss...ertid=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.

[Max_Tab]

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?

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Stobey

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

[Max_Tab]

Originally Posted by PSM

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

[Stobey]

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

[Stobey]

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."

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Stobey

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]

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/2...-constitution/