Many of the Tea Party groups have Article V study groups - the Tenth Amendment,  the Goldwater Institute, the Heritage Institute, Robert Natelson, Richard Epstein, and many Constitutional scholars are now starting to understand how the Article V State process is really quite simple - just present to the many State legislatures the following -

This was used to repeal the 18th amendment -


1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 2/20/1933
Ratified 12/5/1933


1. The fourteenth, the sixteenth, and the seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.

2. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

It takes 38 State legislature to pass the amendment in the legislature and then it must be re-voted on in the ratifying process and upon the signing of the 38th State Legislature to ratify, it becomes the law of the land.

It appears to be the last stand before the Jefferson solution is used. . .

I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. – Letter to James Madison (30 January 1787) Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson quoteThe spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.  - Letter to Abigail Smith Adams (22 February 1787 Thomas Jefferson

Tags: DCLibertyRestoreRightsSIMPLEStatesandendmoneypeople.More…

Views: 2291

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Without Income tax DC has no money to bribe the voters with. Without the 14th amendment the legislature, executive and the courts have to return to the Enumerated powers which will end most agencies like the EPA, BLM, IRS and the other thousands. No more government UNIONS bribing legislators with our money. No more super National Senator Statesmen that vote to damage their own States for they would work as proxies of the State legislatures. No more earmarks and quid pro quo relationships with industries/Unions and elected officials. No more could the courts order us about school busing, about the 10 commandments, intrastate commerce, harvesting of states natural resources, no ordering water turned off to the farmers, no more legislating from the bench like Roberts and his new taxing authority in Obama care.

States will take over the agencies and use the tax money to purchase what they really need no more one size fits all.

How could we get this going in our states?  With some guidance, I'd be very willing to work for this in Michigan.


I have a small group building a complete education and information site that you can access and use all that you desire. I have been involved with various Tea Party groups that have adopted the Article V State amendment program so they can start pushing their legislature members to support the ideas. Friend me on the site and I can help you with details and any questions you have.

Why not send the proposed Amendment to repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th, Amendments to every State Legislature as drafted herein, requesting that they take the appropriate action to ratify the repeal of those Amendments... Thereby, reestablishing, the several States and People's rights under the Constitution as originally intended by our founding fathers.

There is no need to dilly dally around looking for some State Representative or Senator too propose this Amendment.  Where the States provide public access thru 'Public Referendum' or 'Private Initiative'  the people ought to place this Amendment before the citizens in their State for a vote.

The State legislatures must be educated that they have the power and how it works or they will panic and be told that the entire concept is confusing . . The idea is to get enough public support in the many States to go to their Representative in the State legislatures and get them behind the effort. 

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. 
Sun Tzu 

Know your enemy and yourself... therein lies victory.  For the most part State legislatures are filled with corrupt politicians, being part of the political oligarchy of tyrants, they are not likely too advance such legislation.  The web of deceit in government is not restricted to Washington... although it is the most obvious offender.

States rights advocates understand that for a State to assert it's rights it must first have the support of its political class... most States have long been corrupted.  The hope of the people now rests in the bosom of the people... they are the last line of defense against the tyrant.  And... when a people are unable or unwilling to act in their interest there is no appeal... abdication of their liberty being a sovereign choice... albeit a terrible choice.

It is time to show those in the State offices our numbers and powers committed to undoing the Central Federal despotic government. Either they join our task or they will be cast aside and replaced with a true representative of the People, like the oath of office to preserve and defend the PEOPLE from dangers within or without - America is at the tipping point - save the Republic or fight the Rebellion to end the tyranny and oppression of the RULE - BY - MAN we are forced to live under today.

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.  - Speech to the Constitutional Convention (28 June 1787) Benjamin Franklin

Can this be put on the ballot for 2014 as a proposition? Proposition for the Repeal of the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments of the Constitution! Get the word out to what it will accomplish and get it done!


Some States allow ballot issues but Article V requires the majority vote of the Legislators of 38+ States to cause the Congress to send the amendment out to the many States for a second vote of the Legislatures to RATIFY THE AMENDMENT. This is not a Democracy so popular vote is used to elect REPRESENTATIVES [or proxies/fiduciaries] which are Legislators in the States and in the national Congress.

So, the Founders gave us a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC - we the people are to be protected by our State government from oppression and tyranny of the Federal government. That time has arrived and we the people need to go to our State legislators with the proposed amendment in hand and say - do this and do it now.

Amendment V includes the due process clause.  It means that you, as an individual, have a right to be heard in a meaningful way in a meaningful place--if you have a personal stake in the outcome.  But don't hold your breath for someone to get anywhere with this right.  Legal precedence prevails.  The IRS deliberately confiscated my property.  The courts allow the IRS limitless "mistakes."  I took the court record to the press. An investigation was made. The IRS ate crow on the front page.

A lawyer advised me to forget the fact that the IRS confisated $2,500 of my property.  Your rights are a do-it-yourself thing. You would be surprised at the power you possess.

Linda visit the new site and fill out the comments or questions and you will be contacted. All discussions will be on sites like this . . . thank you

I also find a little rebellion now and then invigorating for liberty... putting on notice those who would seek the route of the tyrant, that the people are the final arbiters of their liberty. 

Governments are a necessary evil, using the force of law to restrain the imprudent and often reckless nature of men. It is however the corruption of the law that also wrecks havoc on liberty... and when a tyrant is in control of the government the power of the law is often turned against the people. 




Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service