OREN, "WHAT SAY YOU??" Serious question!
Watching videos and bull shitting on these web sits will do no damn good at all, I think it will take another hit like the Twin Towers to wake our asses up and do something,we have no Government to call on, how have we fallen so far from the once grate nation we where !
Robert, you may be right but do you believe the pamphleteers and writers of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers wasted their time?
If I might, the video starts off on the wrong foot. An Article V Convention IS NOT a Constitutional Convention or a Con-Con.
Like any other proposed amendment, any amendments coming out of an Article V convention MUST be ratified by 3/4ths of the States or the conventions established by the individual 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;"
So which is better or faster? I think we're comparing apples and oranges.
First, let's assume that neither the Congress, the Administration, nor the federal Appellate Courts will abide by the Constitution as intended, including the Amendments, including some bad ones.
The quickest way to defy unconstitutional laws and actions and a lawless regime would be nullification. It can be done by individual States or by a group of States. Of course what the CENTRAL government could do is to retaliate by withholding funds it sends to the States, funds that the States should arguably control in the first place. If that didn't work it could send in federal forces such as the DHS, maybe federal troops. That might mean revolution of course.
With an Article V Convention, it would restrict the powers of the federal government as did the Bill of Rights id,l or was intended to do. Could the CENTRAL REGIME ignore the AMENDMENTS past by the required number of states? SURE! Then what?
Then either the people and the States would have to dust off the Declaration of Independence and take it to hear with a vengeance or submit to a fascist/socialist tyranny, or even dhimmitude.
In any event, why should it only be one or the other? The same goes with voting, phoning, speaking, or protesting, All avenues should be pursued.
Now let me ask a question. Do you believe that the Constitution as the Framers intended it was a good idea or do you agree with the Dominionists that those who framed it like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin were traitors?
BE IT RESOLVED by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota that it requests that Congress propose an amendment to the Constitution that shall substantially read as follows:
(1) The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.
(2) Any entity, including any organization or association of one or more persons, established or allowed by the laws of any State, the United States, or any Foreign State shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the people, through Federal, State, or local law.
(3) The privileges of any entity, including any organization or association, shall be determined by the people, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
(4) Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.
(5) Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.
(6) The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the 1st Amendment.
Dehn’s resolution further affirms itself as an Article V application:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if Congress does not propose the amendment language or substantially similar amendment language as contained in this resolution, the Legislature of the State of Minnesota applies to the Congress of the United States to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing the amendment language or substantially similar amendment language as contained in this resolution as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
So we are then no longer free to associate with other like-minded citizens? To use our funds to express ourselves or to confront our elected officials; is this what you are suggesting?
I was thinking along the same lines as you are. If I recall, I believe the federal government is proposing some of those ideas to limit free speech. Isn't that what the IRS was also trying to do in a round about way?
I prefer nullification, and a gallows, because a convention of states will be ignored just as they now ignore the Constitution!!!!!
Yes Nullification seems to be the best and fastest way to go.
It should be a start. Then we should once again bind the federal government by the chains of the Constitution as Jefferson wrote.
Bob.... I completely agree.
Nullification will not stop federal enforcement of any federal law, even in states that have so-called "nullified" such a law. All any individual would have to do is sue in federal court and the law would be enforced.