Brilliant men have warned that Delegates to a convention can’t be controlled
• During April 1788, our 1st US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay wrote that another
convention would run an “extravagant risque.”
• In Federalist No. 49, James Madison said a convention is neither proper nor effective to
restrain government when it encroaches.
• In his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville, Madison said he “trembled” at the prospect of a
2nd convention; and if there were an Article V convention: “the most violent partizans”,
and “individuals of insidious views” would strive to be delegates and would have “a
dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country.
• In Federalist No. 85 (last para), Hamilton said he “dreads” the consequences of another
convention because the enemies of the Constitution want to get rid of it.
• Justice Arthur Goldberg said in his 1986 editorial in the Miami Herald that “it cannot
be denied that” the Philadelphia convention of 1787 “broke every restraint intended to
limit its power and agenda,” and “any attempt at limiting the agenda [at an Article V
convention] would almost certainly be unenforceable.”
• Chief Justice Warren Burger said in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly: “…there
is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention… After a
Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its
agenda… A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and
confrontation at every turn…”
• Justice Scalia said on April 17, 2014 at the 1:06 mark of this video: “I certainly would
not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come
out of that?”
• Other eminent legal scholars have said the same – Neither the States nor Congress
can control the Delegates. See THIS.
Yet convention supporters ridicule these warnings as “fear mongering.” And they quote law
professor Scalia in 1979, before his decades of experience as a Supreme Court Justice, to “prove”
Ask yourself, “Is it possible that James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Chief Justice Jay,
Justice Goldberg, Chief Justice Burger and Justice Scalia understood something about the
plenipotentiary powers of Delegates to an Article V convention which the pro-convention lobby
A link to a PDF version of this article:
Wins for our side for the year 2018:
Idaho HCR 32 Convention of States Project (COSP): dead! 2/9/18
New Hampshire HCR10 (COSP); HCR12 (term limits); HB1268 (delegate); HJR 4 (laws apply equally to Congress): all dead! 2/8/18 (HB1268; 3/6/18 (HJR4); 3/6/18 (HCR 10); 3/15/18 (HCR12);
South Dakota SJR3 (COSP): dead! 2/14/18
Virginia HJR 49 & SJR 31 “left in rules” [i.e., died] 11/30/18 (COSP’s model delegate bill).
SJ11 Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) defeated in Rules; & SJ26 (BBA)–incorporated into SJ11): both dead 2/9/18.
Wyoming HJ 10 (COSP) 2/16/18; HJ3 (one subject) 2/14/18: both dead!
Utah – Session closed & the “protected” COSP application was never numbered and introduced! dead! 3/8/18 protected bill “abandoned” on sine die.
Kansas – SCR 1611 (COSP): dead! Defeated 22-16 on Senate floor 3/8/18 – needed 2/3 vote). HCR5005 (COSP) finally died in committee at sine die 5/4/18.
West Virginia: HB 2114 (COSP delegate); HCR57 (COSP); SB95 (delegate); SCR9 (COSP); SCR10 (Wolf PAC). This is a State that almost passed COSP in 2017: all dead! 3/10/18
Indiana: Adjourned 314/18. SJR14 (one subject) dead; 3/1/18: Senate passed SR0042, a bill urging the Legislative Council to assign the Compact for America legislation to an interim study committee. (Required Senate passage only).
Mississippi: HC 56 (COSP) passed a House Committee and the full House on 3/22/18 with no public notice of the hearing in Committee and vote on the Floor of the House. The only way COSP can get their dangerous resolutions passed is to get it done behind closed doors before the Public finds out about them. Note the irony that COSP pretends to be about bringing government back to the people! We went into immediate action when it passed the House: Happily, HC 56 was killed in a Senate Committee on 3/23/18. So, HC 56 (COSP) died on 3/23/18.
Other applications for an Article V convention also died at sine die 3/28/18: HC31 (BBA); SC509 (term limits); SCR511 (1 subject); SCR510 (BBA); SCR 548 (COSP); SC644 (COSP).
Georgia: 3/30/18 adjourned sine die and did not pass HR217 and SR195 (term limits). SR195 passed the Senate only 3/9/17.
Kentucky: HB 282 (COSP Delegate); HJR8, HJR12, HJR 47, & HJR 81 (COSP); & HJR119 (BBA): all dead! HJR12 & HJR47 were withdrawn 1/11/18; HJR8 was withdrawn 1/18/18; HJR119, HB282; & HJR81 died at sine die 4/14/18.
Nebraska: LB 1058 (COSP’s delegate bill) & LR 6 (COSP) are dead! LB1058 did not advance 4/5/17 and was indefinitely postponed 4/18/18; LR6 was not prioritized and died at sine die 4/18/18. LR268 (Wolf PAC) and LR266 (Rescission) died at sine die 4/18/18.
Maryland: SJ 8 & HJR 6 (COSP); HJ 11 & SJ 7 (Wolf PAC); HJ 4 (term limits): all dead at sine die 4/10/18.
Tennessee: COSP’s HB 1973 (SB 2452) model delegate bill which created secretly elected super powerful “Convention of States Joint Committee” is dead! Adjourned sine die 4/25/18; fiscal note killed these. SJR0092 (term limits) died at sine die 4/25/18 (and minor bills).
Washington State: HJM 4006 & SJM 8003 (COSP); HJM 4017 (BBA); HJM 4003 & SJM 8000 (Wolf PAC): all dead! Sine die 3/8/18.
Maine HP1251 (BBA); HP1232 (term limits); and SP667 (Wolf PAC) application: all dead! HP1251 and HP1232 failed 3/22/18; Wolf PAC died 2/13/18 – couldn’t agree what committee to send it to.
Hawaii: HCR 5, HCR 88, HR 7, HR 72, SR 16, SCR 33 (COSP); and HCR 207, HR 177, SCR 76, SR 45 (Wolf PAC): all dead at 5/3/18 sine die!
Oklahoma: Adjourned 5/3/15 sine die with HB1434 (Compact for America) and HJR1035 (Wolf PAC) pending. Both are dead. HJR 43 (delegate bill) passed.
Arizona: Adjourned 5/4/18 with HCR2024 (term limits) pending; passed full House & Senate committee. Dead now.
New Mexico: HJR 11 (Wolf PAC) Postponed indefinitely 2/5/18. Now dead.
Colorado: HJR18-1015, SJM18-005 (Wolf PAC): 4/25/18 indefinitely postponed. Now dead.
Iowa: HJR 11, HJR 12, SSB 1110, SJR 8 (COSP); and HJR8 & SJR5 (Wolf PAC): all dead at sine die 5/5/18! HJR 11 was withdrawn on 3/15/17 and replaced by HJR12; SSB1110 was replaced with SJR8.
South Carolina: H.3233, S.0086, S.0878 (COSP); H.3473 & S.0547 (BBA); H.4174 & S.0571 (Wolf PAC); S.0545 and H.3567 (term limits): all dead at sine die 5/10/18!
Vermont: J.R.H. 3 (COSP) & J.R.H. 11 (term limits) both dead at sine die 5/12/18!
Louisiana: SCR 87 (Wolf PAC): dead at sine die 5/18/18. Failed vote; reconsideration pending at sine die. HCR 4 (delegate bill) passed.
Missouri: SCR32 & HCR61 (Wolf PAC); HCR103 (Life); HCR92 (Marriage); SCR48 State powers; SCR91 Repeal 16th and 17th – all dead at sine die; SCR40 (term limits) passed 5/17/18.
Minnesota: HF2690, SF3490, & SF4105 (COSP); & SF3920 (one subject): all dead at sine die 5/20/18.
North Carolina: SJR 36 (COSP) was fast-tracked thru the Senate in 2017 with last-minute, midnight hour, or closed-door Committee Meetings which were scheduled so quickly that the People of North Carolina had no time to attend, testify, or adequately respond. It was defeated on a Floor vote in the House; but a few hours later, House Republicans voted to “reconsider” so that it could be voted on during the 2018 Session. But the opposition to SJR 36 (which includes us) created so much controversy, and turned on enough lights in Republican Representative’s minds that the Republican Caucus decided not to call it up for a vote on the Floor. Our letters, visits, and phone calls matter! North Carolina session ended June 29, 2018.
Illinois: HR 0110, HR 0054, HJR 0018, HJR 0032, and SJR 0001 (COSP); and HB 2596 (COSP’s delegate bill) all dead at the end of the “veto” session of Nov. 2018.
Wisconsin: AJR 35 & SJR 24 (Wolf PAC); SJR 18 (BBA); SB 107 & SJR 19 (delegate bill): all dead!
The States below were in session all year – these applications died at the end of the year 2018:
Michigan: HB 6523 (COSP delegate bill) dead. HJR V (COSP) dead. SJR R (COSP) dead.
Ohio: HJR 2 (COSP) dead. SJR 1 (COSP) dead.
Pennsylvania: HR10 (countermand application); HR 11 (delegate bill) ; HR 100 (delegate Bill); HR 187 (COSP); HR 357 (Wolf PAC); HR 647 (term limits); SR 133 (COSP); SR 134 (Regulation Freedom application); and SR 254 (Wolf PAC) all dead!
New York: A 05109 & S 03317 (Wolf PAC) & B 00944, C01214, & J 05774 (COSP) are all dead.
Massachusetts: H. 1929 & H. 4272 (COSP), S. 401 (COSP) & H. 1926 & S2243 (Wolf PAC) are dead.
Year End Tally:
The COSP application for an Article V convention
Our side defeated the COSP application for an Article V convention in 24 States this year: Idaho, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Nebraska, Maryland, Washington State, Hawaii, Iowa, South Carolina, Vermont, Minnesota, North Carolina, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts.
COSP didn’t win any States this year.
“Unfaithful delegate” bills
Our side defeated “unfaithful delegate” bills in 10 States this year: New Hampshire, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Two States, Louisiana and Oklahoma, passed delegate bills this year; but that doesn’t hurt us because both States had already passed the COSP & BBA applications for an Article V convention.
Wolf PAC’s application for an Article V convention
Our side defeated the Wolf PAC application in 17 States this year: West Virginia, Nebraska, Maryland, Washington State, Maine, Hawaii, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, South Carolina, Louisiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts.
Wolf PAC didn’t win any States this year.
Term Limits application for an Article V convention
Our side defeated the term limits application in 10 States this year: New Hampshire, Mississippi, Georgia, Maryland, Tennessee, Maine, Arizona, South Carolina, Vermont, and Pennsylvania.
Alabama (HJR 23) & Missouri passed the term limits application this year; but since they had already passed the COSP application, it didn’t matter.
The balanced budget amendment (BBA) application for an Article V convention
Our side defeated the BBA application in 7 States this year: Virginia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Washington State, Maine, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.
No States passed the BBA application this year.
Compact for America’s fake “balanced budget amendment”
No State this year ratified Compact for America’s scheme which, while pretending to require Congress to cut spending, actually delegates to Congress authority to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax and keep the income tax!
Our work is made possible by Eagle Forum who has for several years paid our legislative subscription fee which makes it possible for us to closely monitor, track, and expeditiously act, on all Article V convention applications and delegate legislation filed in every State in the Union.
We also thank the Freedom First Society which will pay for our subscription the coming year to another valuable database.
We thank all the letter writers, the “boots on the ground”, and the national, statewide, and local organizations and individuals who put their shoulders to the plow to help defeat these applications for an Article V convention and the delegate bills.
REMEMBER: Congress may count the applications however they want – they may aggregate them to get the 34 total. So it is imperative that we stop any new States from passing any “brand” of application and that we get States to rescind their existing applications. 2019 will be a bloodbath – don’t be complacent!
The federal government is usurping the powers of the States, expressly retained by Art. I, §2, cl. 1, US Constitution, to determine qualifications for voting. And by perverting Art. I, §4, cl. 1, it is also usurping the States’ reserved power to determine procedures for registration of voters.
Consistent with Principles of Republican Government, every State in this Union has restricted voting to Citizens. 1 But on October 26, 2010 in Gonzales v. Arizona, a three judge panel on the US Circuit Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) construed the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and asserted that Arizona has no right to require applicants for voter registration to provide proof of citizenship. I wrote about it at the time HERE. On rehearing, the en banc Court of Appeals agreed with the panel; and on June 17, 2013, in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed.
A few months thereafter, California passed a law which permits illegal aliens to get drivers’ licenses; and during 2015, consistent with the unconstitutional NVRA, passed “Motor Voter” providing that when one gets a drivers’ license, one is automatically registered to vote. 2
The federal government is unlawfully mandating that illegal aliens be allowed to vote in our elections.
Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations was a Godsend to our Framing Generation because it provided the new concepts our Framers needed to transform us from subjects of a Monarchy to Citizens of a Republic.3 Book I, Ch. XIX, defines “citizens”, “inhabitants” and “naturalization”:
So “citizens” have civic advantages and political rights which are not extended to “inhabitants” – and certainly not to aliens who have unlawfully entered a country.4
Accordingly, our Constitution permits only Citizens to serve in Congress (Art. I, §2, cl. 2 & §3, cl. 3); the President must be a “natural born Citizen” (Art. II, §1, cl. 5); Article IV, §2, cl. 1 & §1 of the 14th Amendment refer to the “privileges and immunities of citizens”; and the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments5 refer to voting by “Citizens”.
The slaves in America were “inhabitants”, not “citizens”. They weren’t allowed to vote. Federalist No. 54 (5th para from bottom) tells us:
“…The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend are not…the same… [in the several States]. In some of the States the difference is very material. In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives… the Southern States might… [insist]…that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens…” [boldface added]6
In Federalist No. 60 (1st, 2nd and last paras), Hamilton speaks of the “fundamental privilege” of citizens to vote, and that citizens who are conscious and tenacious of their rights would flock to the places of election to overthrow tyrants. In Federalist No. 61 (2nd para), Hamilton speaks of “the suffrages of the citizens”, and of voting as an “invaluable privilege”.
Over and over, The Federalist Papers show that voting is restricted to citizens:
“In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffragees of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power…” (No. 22, 6th para from bottom) [boldface added]
“If we consider the situation of the men on whom the free suffrages of their fellow-citizens may confer the representative trust, we shall find it involving every security which can be devised or desired for their fidelity to their constituents (No. 57, 7th para) *** “… that each representative of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand citizens…” (No. 57, 7th para from bottom) [boldface added]
“There is a peculiarity in the federal Constitution which insures a watchful attention in a majority both of the people and of their representatives to a constitutional augmentation of the latter. The peculiarity lies in this, that one branch of the legislature is a representation of citizens, the other of the States…” (No. 58 at 3.) [boldface added]
“…A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations …” No. 68 (3rd para) [boldface added]
“1. A vote; a voice given in deciding a controverted question, or in the choice of a man for an office or trust. Nothing can be more grateful to a good man than to be elevated to office by the unbiased suffrages of free enlightened citizens.”
“5. In the United States, a person, native7 or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise…”
“1. … the right to vote for governor, senators and representatives, is a franchise belonging to citizens, and not enjoyed by aliens…”
Inhabitants and aliens may not vote unless they become naturalized citizens and meet whatever additional qualifications for voting are set forth in the State Constitution. Naturalization is:
“The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native subject or citizen. naturalization in Great Britain is only by act of parliament. In the United States, it is by act of Congress, 8 vesting certain tribunals with the power.”
When we operated under the Articles of Confederation (our first federal Constitution),9 the States determined the qualifications for voting in state and local elections and in elections to the Continental Congress. These qualifications were set forth in the State Constitutions, and varied from State to State.
In our federal Constitution of 1787, the States expressly retained (at Art. I, §2, cl.1) their pre-existing power to determine the qualifications of voters; and ordained that those whom they determined were qualified to vote in elections to their State House of Representatives would thereby be qualified to vote for their federal Representatives to Congress.
Our Framers specifically rejected the idea that the new Congress or the State Legislatures would determine who was eligible to vote. Instead, only The People of each State were competent to define the right of suffrage for their State, and their definition was enshrined in their State Constitution. In Federalist No. 52 (2nd para), James Madison tells us:
“…The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government.10 It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper … To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper … To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by the convention … must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established, by the State itself. It will be safe to the United States, because, being fixed by the State constitutions, it is not alterable by the State governments…”[boldface added]
Remember! Since the federal and state governments are merely “creatures” of constitutions, they have no power to determine who may vote. That power belongs to the “creators” of the governments. Only The People are competent to set the qualifications for voting; and our determinations are enshrined in our State Constitutions.
Our Constitution of 1787 created a federal government to which we delegated only “few and defined” powers [see chart]. Nowhere in the Constitution did we delegate to the federal government power to dictate procedures States must use in registering voters. Accordingly, it is a “reserved” power.11 Until the federal government usurped power over this issue, the States always determined their own procedures for registration. Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent [at II. A. 2]:
“This understanding of Article I, §2, is consistent with powers enjoyed by the States at the founding. For instance, ownership of real or personal property was a common prerequisite to voting … To verify that this qualification was satisfied, States might look to proof of tax payments… In other instances, States relied on personal knowledge of fellow citizens to verify voter eligibility. . . States have always had the power to ensure that only those qualified under state law to cast ballots exercised the franchise.
Perhaps in part because many requirements (such as property ownership or taxpayer status) were independently documented and verifiable, States in 1789 did not generally “register” voters . . . Over time, States replaced their informal systems for determining eligibility, with more formalized pre-voting registration regimes. . . But modern voter registration serves the same basic purpose as the practices used by States in the Colonies and early Federal Republic. The fact that States have liberalized voting qualifications and streamlined the verification process through registration does not alter the basic fact that States possess broad authority to set voter qualifications and to verify that they are met.”
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) purports to require States to “accept and use” a federal voter registration form! The Ninth Circuit asserted that since the federal form doesn’t require applicants to provide documentary proof of citizenship, the States may not require it. This paper exposes some of the false arguments made by the Ninth Circuit’s three judge panel, and sets forth what Hamilton and Madison actually said as to the genuine meanings of Art. I, §2, cl. 1 and §4, cl.1: Arizona’s Proposition 200: What The Constitution Really Says About Voter Qualifications & Exposing The “Elections Clause” Argument.
But the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit. Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, swept Art. I, §2, cl. 1 under the rug and ignored Hamilton’s and Madison’s explanations of Art. I, §4, cl. 1. Scalia asserted:
“The Clause’s [Art. I, §4, cl. 1] substantive scope is broad. “Times, Places, and Manner,” we have written, are “comprehensive words,” which “embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections,” including, as relevant here and as petitioners do not contest, regulations relating to “registration”….” 12
“…the NVRA forbids States to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the Federal Form…”
“… the fairest reading of the statute is that a state-imposed requirement of evidence of citizenship not required by the Federal Form is “inconsistent with” the NVRA’s mandate that States “accept and use” the Federal Form…”
So what should we do when federal courts issue unconstitutional opinions?
The federal government has refused to control our borders and, as a result, we are being invaded. The federal government is demanding that invaders be allowed to vote in our elections. We have no obligation to obey unconstitutional dictates of the federal government. See Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense. What does your State Constitution say about qualifications for voting? Demand that your State government enforce your State Constitution.
And Remember! As Hamilton told us in Federalist No. 78 (6th para), federal courts can only issue judgments – they must rely on the Executive Branch to enforce them. So the President’s “check” on usurping federal judges is to refuse to enforce their opinions. States must man up and obey the Constitution instead of unconstitutional dictates of the federal Legislative and Judicial Branches. Do you think that President Trump will send out US Marshalls or the National Guard to FORCE States to allow illegal aliens to vote? The iron is hot – the time to strike is now.
1Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. says (2nd para):
“…Exercising its right to set federal voter qualifications, Arizona, like every other State, permits only U. S. citizens to vote in federal elections, and Arizona has concluded that this requirement cannot be effectively enforced unless applicants for registration are required to provide proof of citizenship…” [boldface added]
2 The California legislature thus violated Article II, Section 2, California Constitution which says, “A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.”
3That Vattel had such influence is proved HERE.
4All men everywhere possess the rights God gave them. But in a civil society, the members possess political or civic rights which are not extended to inhabitants, lawful visitors, or illegal alien invaders.
5 With these four Amendments, the States agreed they would not deny suffrage to Citizens on account of race, being a female, not paying the tax, or being between 18 to 21 years of age. States retain power to deny suffrage to any Citizen on account of other factors (e.g., illiteracy, being on welfare, or stupidity).
6 Freed slaves were naturalized by §1 of the 14th Amendment.
7Vattel §212: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” [See §§ 215-217 for other places babies may be born as natural-born citizens.]
8Art. I, §8, cl. 4, US Const.
9 The Articles of Confederation were ratified July 9, 1778.
10A “republic” is a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people.
11 “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” (10th Amendment) [italics added]
12 Counsel for the State of Arizona made a strategic error in failing to challenge the constitutionality of the NVRA as outside the scope of powers granted to Congress and as in violation of Art. I, §2, cl. 1 and §4, cl.1, US Const.
Article V convention supporters seem to think they are oh! so clever when they accuse those of us who oppose an Article V convention of “fear mongering”.
Well, I graduated from “fearfulness” long ago – now I’m in the HORROR stage: Under the North American Union (NAU), Canada, the United States, and Mexico merge and a Parliament is set up over them. This was President George W. Bush’s plan, cooked up during 2005 at his ranch in Texas with the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico.
But in order to set this up, they need a new Constitution which transforms the United States from a sovereign nation to a member state of the NAU.
How do they get the new Constitution? At an Article V convention.
How do they get an Article V convention? Tell the American People that at an Article V convention, they can get Amendments to our existing Constitution which will “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”.
And, as ordinary citizens who support an Article V convention give daily proof, such tactics work. People don’t think – they follow what popular people tell them, and then they repeat it as if they know all about it. And they insult, revile and marginalize the people who do tell them the Truth (as they have been programmed by their Conditioners to do).
Americans don’t know that delegates to an Article V convention have “PLENIPOTENTIARY POWERS” and thus have the power (recognized in the 2nd paragraph of our Declaration of Independence) to throw off our present Constitution and establish a new one with a new (and easier) mode of ratification.
Americans don’t know that in Federalist Paper No. 40 (15th para), James Madison invoked this clause in the Declaration of Independence as justification for what they did at the federal convention of 1787: Instead of proposing Amendments to the Articles of Confederation (as they had been instructed to do), they wrote an entirely new Constitution which created a new government.
Americans don’t know that because of these plenipotentiary powers, Delegates to an Article V convention can do whatever they want. It doesn’t matter whether they were sent to the convention for “the sole and express purpose” of proposing a balanced budget amendment, or a term limits amendment, or a countermand amendment, or some other designated purpose – they are not bound by those spurious limitations.
Americans don’t know that “faithful delegates” laws are a joke: Not only do delegates have plenipotentiary powers and sovereign immunity for whatever they do; it is a simple matter to circumvent “faithful delegate” laws.
So that’s how a Constitutional Republic is destroyed and replaced by a global government.
You can read about the NAU here. Read the Task Force Report. Heidi Cruz was on the Task Force which wrote the report.http://www.cfr.org/…/building-north-american-community/p8102
Questions: Is Senator Ted Cruz in on this plan to move us into the NAU? Is Governor Greg Abbott of Texas in on this plan to move us into the NAU? Is Lt. Gov Dan Patrick of Texas in on this plan?
People! Your guides are leading you astray and are confusing the path you should take. You better start using your own heads – and you better start doing it today. We are close to having Congress call an Article V convention. You better get with your State Legislators and educate them about the dangers and give them the Facts.
If you continue to refuse to hear the Truth; and if you continue to revile those who do tell the Truth, then the blood of a great many people will be on your head.
Hell is just around the corner. Look at Western Europe – how has the EU worked out? Americans better wise up now. Stop an Article V convention. Tell your State legislators to rescind the applications for a convention your State has already passed; and tell them not to pass any more applications. For an unofficial list (by State) of applications to Congress which have already been passed, go HERE.
Trashing the 12th Amendment with the National Popular Vote
By Publius Huldah
The compact for a National Popular Vote (NPV) is a destructive scheme. Yet it’s been approved by several States; and is pending in others. Since the text of the compact no longer seems to be set forth on the NPV website, we’ll look at the NPV bill now pending in Tennessee.
In a nutshell, the compact seeks to evade the 12th Amendment to our Constitution (where the States elect the President); and substitutes a national popular vote where inhabitants of major metropolitan areas elect the President.
The Constitution our Framers gave us
The federal government created by our Constitution is a Federation of Sovereign States united under a federal government for those limited purposes itemized in the Constitution; with all other powers reserved by the States or the People.
So that The States – The Members of the Federation – could maintain their independence and sovereignty, our Framers wrote these provisions into our Constitution:
The People were to elect only their Representatives to the House (Art. I, § 2, cl.1).
James Madison explains in Federalist No. 45 (7th para), why this ensured that The States would maintain control over the federal government:
“The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government …Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. …Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments …” [boldface mine]
The result of State Legislatures choosing the U.S. Senators and controlling the election of the President [via the selection of Electors], was that the States would be able to control the federal government.
The 17th Amendment
But we threw away one of these safeguards when we foolishly ratified the 17th Amendment with the popular election of U.S. Senators. This is how The States – The Members of the Federation – lost their representation in Congress and their control of the Senate.
Art. II, §1, cl. 2 and the 12th Amendment
We abandoned the other safeguard when we foolishly ignored the procedures in the 12th Amendment where small bodies of specially chosen wise and prudent men (Electors) made the selections of President and Vice President for their State. We allowed Electors to become rubber stamps for the popular vote in their State.
Our Framers didn’t want popular election of the President because they recognized that People are easily manipulated by those who take advantage of their “hopes and fears”, to steer them towards candidates favored by powerful groups (Federalist No. 64 (3rd & 4th paras; Federalist No. 68, etc.)
Furthermore, under the 12th Amendment, the electoral votes of each State are split according to how the Electors vote. If Tennessee obeyed the 12th Amendment, it would work like this when selecting President: 5 Electors vote for Candidate X; 4 vote for Candidate Y; and 2 vote for Candidate Z. Those would be the vote totals for President which would be sent to Congress. The same procedures are to be followed in a separate vote for Vice-President. 1 The “winner takes all” practice followed in most States is unconstitutional!
How The National Popular Vote Scheme Will Work.
Under the scheme incorporated in the NPV bill pending in Tennessee, all of Tennessee’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.
The wording of the compact is deliberately obscure. In plain English, this is what it does:
Each Member State will conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President.
(a) & (b) The State Election official in each Member State will add up the votes cast in all the States and the D.C. to get the total number of votes cast nationally for each presidential ticket. The State official will then designate the presidential ticket with the largest number of votes nationally as the “national popular vote winner”.
(c) & (g) Electors will then be appointed in each Member State who are to cast all their votes for the national popular vote winner.
So! If the popular vote in Tennessee is for James Madison, but the total national popular vote favors Adolf Hitler, then all of Tennessee’s 11 Electoral Votes are awarded to Adolf Hitler.
Indeed, the winner of the national popular vote will end up with all the electoral votes for every State. And do not think that the winner will fail to claim a “Mandate” for whatever he wants to do.
The States Can’t Lawfully Enter Into A Compact Which Violates The U.S. Constitution!
Every aspect of the NPV violates the 12th Amendment. It sets up a method of electing the President and vice-President which is altogether repugnant to our Constitution.
Furthermore, Art. I, §10, last clause, prohibits States from “enter[ing] into any Agreement or Compact with another State” “without the Consent of Congress”. So, whether the NPV Compact also violates Art. I, §10, last clause, depends on whether Congress consents to it. But Congress may not lawfully consent to unconstitutional compacts of the States!
Under The NPV Scheme, Votes From Major Metropolitan Areas Will Decide Presidential Elections.
Most of the Population of these United States is located in a few major metropolitan areas. Under the NPV scheme, these areas would decide the elections for President!
See this 3D map (scroll down) showing how the major metropolitan areas voted in the last presidential election.
The NPV is not about “making every vote count”. The NPV is about guaranteeing that every future presidential election is decided by inhabitants of major metropolitan areas. And it further diminishes State sovereignty.
What Should We Do?
Repeal the 17th Amendment. We must henceforth elect to Congress only those who are committed to repealing the 17th Amendment. This is the only way The States can regain control of the Senate.
Return to the 12th Amendment. We must dismantle the present unconstitutional and corrupt system and return to the method of electing the President and Vice President established in our Constitution. State Legislators could restore to their States right now the power to control the President! All States have to do is obey the 12th Amendment! Also, specially chosen Electors are far more likely to choose good Presidents than the ignorant masses which fill our major cities.
Even in its present perverted form, the “Electoral College” serves two important purposes: (1) It balances the influence of the heavily populated urban areas with the more sparsely populated rural areas; and (2) gives the smaller States a voice in the election of President.
As a People, we need to STOP being so eager to amend a Constitution we have never read and don’t understand.
1 For an illustration of how voting under the 12th Amendment is to be conducted, see THIS under the subheading, “The 12th Amendment Establishes Procedures For Voting By Electors.”
How a Balanced Budget Amendment Would Give the Federal Government Lawful Power Over Whatever They Want.
Does our existing Constitution permit the federal government to spend money on whatever they want?
No! It contains precise limits on federal spending.
Federal spending is limited by the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. If you go through the Constitution and highlight all the powers delegated to Congress and the President, you will get a complete list of the objects on which Congress is permitted to spend money. Here’s the list:
That’s what Congress is authorized by our Constitution to spend money on. Did I leave anything out? Take a few minutes and, armed with a highlighter, read carefully through the Constitution and see for yourself.
Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out this handful of delegated powers; and it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes. 1
Pursuant to Article I, §9, clause 7, the federal government is to periodically publish a Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures. Citizens could use this Statement and Account – which would be so short that everyone would have time to read it – to monitor the spending of their public servants.
So that’s how our existing Constitution limits federal spending:
It was unconstitutional spending and unconstitutional promises (Social Security, Medicare, etc., etc., etc.) which got us a national debt of almost $19 trillion, plus a hundred trillion or so in unfunded liabilities.
Since the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money; the Constitution doesn’t provide for a budget.
We never had a federal budget until Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. By this time, the Progressives controlled both political parties and the federal government.
The Progressives wanted a federal budget because they wanted to spend money on objects which were not on the list of delegated powers.
A balanced budget amendment (BBA) would substitute a budget for the enumerated powers, and thus would legalize the current practice where Congress spends money on whatever they or the President put in the budget.
The result of a BBA is to legalize spending which is now unconstitutional – it changes the constitutional standard for spending from whether the object is on the list of enumerated powers to a limit on the total amount of spending.
And because a BBA would permit Congress to lawfully spend money on whatever is put in the budget, the powers of the federal government would be lawfully increased to include whatever THEY decide to put in the budget.
So a BBA would fundamentally transform our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only to one of general and unlimited powers – because the federal government would then be authorized by the Constitution to exercise power over ANY object they decide to put into the budget.
You must read proposed amendments and understand how they change our Constitution before you support them.
All federal and State officials take an oath to support the federal Constitution (Art. VI, clause 3). When people in Congress appropriate funds for objects not listed in the Constitution; and when State officials accept federal funds for objects not listed, they violate their oath to support the Constitution. According to the PEW Report, federal funds provided an average of 30% of the States’ revenue for FY 2013. Look up your State HERE. Were those federal funds used to implement unconstitutional federal programs in your State?
Power over education, medical care, agriculture, state and local law enforcement, environment, etc., is not delegated to the federal government: those powers are reserved by the States or the People. Congress spends on objects for which it has no constitutional authority; and bribes States with federal funds to induce them to implement unconstitutional federal programs. It was the unconstitutional spending which gave us this crushing $19 Trillion debt.
How do we go about downsizing the federal government to its constitutional limits?
We stop the unconstitutional and frivolous spending one can read about all over the internet.
We begin the shutdown of unconstitutional federal departments and agencies by selecting for immediate closure those which serve no useful purpose or cause actual harm such as the Departments of Energy, Education, Homeland Security, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 3
Other unconstitutional federal departments and agencies must be dismantled and their functions returned to the States or The People.
An orderly phase-out is required of those unconstitutional federal programs in which Citizens were forced to participate – such as social security and Medicare – so that the rug is not pulled out from American Citizens who became dependent. The phase-out could be funded by sales of unconstitutionally held federal lands.
The federal government is obligated (Art. I, §8, cl. 11-16) to provide for service related injuries suffered by our Veterans.
The Constitution delegates to Congress the power to appropriate funds for “post Roads” (Art. I, §8, cl. 7). While there may be room for argument as to what is included within the term, “post Road”; clearly, some federal involvement in road building is authorized by our Constitution. State dependence on federal highway funds might be reduced by eliminating or reducing federal fuel taxes, and the substitution of fuel taxes collected by individual States. And there is nothing immoral about toll roads.
Since our Constitution was written to delegate to the federal government only the few and defined powers enumerated in the Constitution, we don’t have to change the Constitution to rein in federal spending. The Constitution isn’t the problem – ignoring it is the problem. Let us begin to enforce the Constitution we have.
1 Our original Constitution authorized only excise taxes & tariffs on imports (Art. I, §8, clause 1), with any shortfall being made up by an apportioned assessment on the States based on population (Art. I, §2, clause 3).
2 Compact for America’s (CFA) version of a BBA permits spending limits to be waived whenever Congress and 26 States agree. CFA’s version also authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax in addition to keeping the income tax! See THIS Paper.
3 George Washington’s Cabinet had four members: Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of Treasury, and Attorney General.
Open Letter to State Legislators Everywhere: The Other Side of the Article V Convention Issue
By Publius Huldah
If there is an Article V convention, we will lose the Constitution we have, and another Constitution will be imposed.
You are not getting both sides of this issue. Throughout the Country, those of us who are warning of the dangers of an Article V convention are marginalized, ridiculed, smeared, shut out of meetings, and barred from speaking in public forums. THIS short essay from the Principled Policy Blog describes what we face every day.
THIS article is an account by Donny Harwood, a Citizen of Tennessee, describing how he was shut out of the public meeting which the Convention of States people held on October 19, 2015 at the Millennium Maxwell House Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee. According to The Leaf-Chronicle, a number of Tennessee Legislators were at the meeting. A prominent Tennessee radio talk show host was also present.
And everyone at the meeting was prevented from hearing the other side of this issue.
The reason convention proponents forbid dissenting voices is that we prove, by means of Facts and original source documents, that the claims and promises of the convention proponents are false. HERE are some of the original source documents Legislators would hear about if they were presented with the other side of this issue.
We are in the final stage of a takeover. Leftists of every variety want a new Constitution to legalize our transformation from the constitutional Republic created by our existing Constitution to a dictatorship.
To get a new Constitution, they need a convention. So they are telling conservatives that our Constitution is causing our problems and we need to amend the Constitution. And they say we can only make the amendments they say we need at a convention.
Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amending our Constitution. Congress:
The first method was used for our existing 27 amendments: Congress proposed them and sent them to the States for ratification or rejection.
Under the second method, Congress calls a convention. We have never had a convention under Article V. Such conventions are extremely dangerous. THIS is one of many articles which illustrate the danger, sets forth warnings from two of our Framers and two former US Supreme Court Justices, and explains why Delegates to a convention can NOT be controlled by State laws.
National conventions are dangerous because the Delegates have the plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification. The video by Chuck Michaelis at the bottom of THIS page explains these plenipotentiary powers. Such Delegates are the Sovereign Representatives of The People and have the power to impose a new Constitution. This has already happened in our history:
So! Not only do Delegates to a national convention have this plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution; the precedent to do so has already been established.
The Left has been pushing for a convention for 50 years – ever since the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. They need a convention to get it imposed.
Several other Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention.
If there is a convention, the only issues will be (1) whose Constitution will be imposed by the Delegates; and (2) what new mode of ratification will be set forth in the new Constitution.
In the past, conservatives defeated the periodic pushes for a convention. So the Left changed tactics: Now, they are marketing it to appeal to conservatives: they are telling conservatives that a convention is the only way to rein in the federal government. These leftists, some wearing conservatives’ clothing, are using the classic techniques of the Left: They are not telling the truth; they are smearing their opponents; and they have divided conservatives. Conservatives who fell for the marketing have been induced to attack and exclude conservatives who are warning of the dangers of a convention. And they won’t let us address their groups.
Our existing Constitution really was a 5,000 year miracle. We delegated only a handful of enumerated powers to the federal government – you can see what we delegated HERE. Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – we need to restore the Constitution we already have. We begin the Restoration by reading and learning our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. And enforcing it! See, in this regard, the Tenth Amendment Center’s 2015 State of the Nullification Movement Report.
For the Love of God and Country, heed this warning.
Very truly yours,
By Publius Huldah
A devilish plot is afoot to impose new national taxes on the American People. It is a masterful piece of trickery because the authorization for the new national taxes is buried within Compact for America’s version of a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.
Furthermore, the balanced budget amendment does nothing to control federal spending; and transforms our Constitution from one of limited and defined powers to one of general and unlimited powers. 1
Let’s look at Sections 1-6 of Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment:
It does Nothing to Control Federal Spending
Section 1 allows Congress to spend as much as they take from us in taxes and add to the national debt. That’s a good idea?
Sections 2 and 3 permit Congress to raise the debt whenever 26 States agree. States are addicted to federal funds. Will 25 States agree not to take more federal funds?
Section 4 is a joke: Who believes Congress will impeach a President for refusing to “impound” an appropriation made by Congress? Congress won’t even impeach a President for Treason.
How Authorization for the New Taxes is Hidden
Section 5 says:
“No bill that provides for a new or increased general revenue tax shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress….” [italics mine]
What is a “general revenue tax”? Section 6 defines it:
“…’general revenue tax’ means any income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States…” [italics mine]
Now go back to Section 5 and substitute the definition of “general revenue tax” for that term:
“No bill that provides for a new or increased income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress….”
There it is: All that’s needed is approval of two-thirds of the members of each House and a new national sales tax and/or value added tax is imposed on us. And they can increase it, along with increasing the income tax, whenever they get two-thirds of the members to vote for it.
Section 5 also permits Congress to make laws to impose a new “end user sales tax” 4 which would replace the income tax – this “end user sales tax” is passed by a simple majority of both houses.
So! Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment provides two options to Congress:
Which option will Congress choose?
Our Constitution Doesn’t Now Authorize a National Sales Tax or Value-added Tax
Article I, §8, clause 1 says:
“The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…”
Principles of Compact for America say this clause already authorizes a national sales tax or value added tax. Board Vice-President Chip DeMoss said on Feb. 12, 2014:
“a national sales tax would be an “impost” (defined as a tax or similar compulsory payment) that is authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1…” [see comment 19].
We may not properly use DeMoss’ redefinition of “impost”!
We must use the definition of “impost” our Framers used: The Federalist Papers say an “impost” is a tax or duty on imports. Type imposts in the search box [at the link] and the Papers discussing imposts will come up. See for yourself that an “impost” is a tax or duty on imports.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “impost” as:
“…Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by government on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation. Imposts are also called customs.”
Do you see?
National sales taxes and value-added taxes are also not “excise” taxes. Excise taxes are a tax on a unit of goods – such as the infamous whiskey excise tax of 1791 which led to the Whiskey Rebellion. 5 It imposed a flat tax per gallon. The tax was payable for domestic whiskey at the distillery (§17 of the Act) and the casks were numbered and marked to show the tax had been paid (§19 of the Act).
“Taxes” at Art. I, §8, clause 1 refers to the apportioned direct tax provided for at Art. I, §2, clause 3 of our Constitution.
Our Framers were specific about the kinds of taxes Congress is permitted to impose. Congress does not have the power to impose any kind of tax it wants. Our Framers limited Congress’ taxing power to:
A sales tax is none of the above. A sales tax is a percentage of the retail price of goods. A value-added tax is a “turbo-charged national sales tax on goods and services that is applied at each stage of production, not merely on retail transactions” and raises a “gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments worldwide”.
We have never had a national sales tax or value added tax in this Country. Why? Because they are not authorized by the Constitution.
We were manipulated into supporting the 16th Amendment. We were told the income tax would “soak the rich” – and the envious drooled at the prospect.
And so again today, statists are seeking to trick us into supporting a national sales tax or a value added tax: first, by concealing it within the verbiage of the bill; 6 and then, once the trickery was exposed, by claiming the Constitution already authorizes these new types of taxes.
There is a Better Way: Downsize the Federal Government!
Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. The list of objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money is a short list. See the list HERE.
Most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated by the Constitution. Let’s cut federal spending by downsizing the federal government to its enumerated powers and constitutional limits.
1 Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers: If an object is on the list of enumerated powers (e.g., the patent & copyright office authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 8), Congress may lawfully spend money on it. That’s how our Constitution already controls federal spending.
All versions of a balanced budget amendment change the constitutional standard for spending FROM whether an object is on the list of enumerated powers TO a limit on total spending where Congress may spend money on whatever they or the President put in the budget. This is what transforms our Constitution FROM one of enumerated powers only TO one of general and unlimited powers. And that is the true purpose of a balanced budget amendment. It has nothing to do with limiting federal spending – the pretended spending limits are fictitious since they may be waived whenever the feds [and 26 of the States] want to waive them.
3 Matthew Burns’ article about the hearing on HB 366 before N. Carolina’s House Judiciary Committee (which passed HB 366) doesn’t mention the new national taxes. Burns quotes the Bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Millis, as saying the problem is “Washington is unwilling or unable to limit itself.” So the solution is to massively increase Congress’ taxing powers?
4 “End user sales tax” is not defined in the balanced budget amendment.
5 Apparently, the practice of tarring & feathering “revenuers” began with the Whiskey Excise Tax.
6 The trickery was exposed over a year ago HERE. Since then, they have claimed the Constitution already authorizes the new taxes. Are we too gullible to be free? PH
By Publius Huldah
We will never solve our political and fiscal problems if we continue in our present state of ignorance of the fundamental distinction between the federal Constitution and the State Constitutions.
With our federal Constitution, we created a national government to which we delegated only a handful of enumerated powers. If you would trouble yourself to read the federal Constitution, this fact would jump out at you and hit you over the head. [THIS simple chart will get you started.]
The federal government doesn’t need a budget because Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers. Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of delegated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes. 1
And if you read your State Constitution, you will see that those who ratified it [foolishly] created a State government of general and unlimited powers subject only to the exceptions carved out by its Declaration of Rights. 2
Since State governments were created to possess general and unlimited powers, State governments may lawfully spend money on just about anything they want. 2 Accordingly, State governments need budgets to limit their spending to receipts.
But Federal Spending is limited by the Enumerated Powers
The federal Constitution lists the items Congress is permitted to spend money on. If you read through the federal Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to Congress and the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress is lawfully authorized to spend money. Here is the list:
So! That’s about all Congress is authorized by our original Constitution to spend money on. 4 Did I leave anything out? To find out, take 20 minutes and, armed with a highlighter, read carefully through the original Constitution and see for yourself.
Let’s look at some of the appropriations bills passed by the First Congress: 5
Read these appropriations bills: They are single subject, short, easy to understand, and illustrate how appropriations bills ought to be written.
So, do you see? Congress is to make the appropriations for the objects of the enumerated powers delegated to the national government.
Pursuant to Art. I, §9, clause 7, Congress is to periodically publish a Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures.
We don’t need a federal budget because the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money.
Accordingly, the federal Constitution doesn’t provide for a Budget. We never had a federal budget until Congress passed the unconstitutional Budget and Accounting Act of 1921.
We got the crushing federal debt because for 100 years, Congress has been IGNORING the existing constitutional limits on its spending. Most of Congress’ spending is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the delegated powers.
The Answer to our political and fiscal problems is already laid out in the federal Constitution: Downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers and return the usurped powers to the States or the People.
Why are Some Pushing for a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA)?
Many of those clamoring for a federal BBA don’t know about the fundamental distinction between the federal and State Constitutions. But they want to do something about the out of control federal spending; they are told a BBA is the answer; and so, without giving it much thought, they jump on the bandwagon.
But others have an evil agenda in pushing for a BBA – an agenda so evil that if they disclosed it, most Americans would reject it:
All versions of a BBA transform our federal Constitution from one which created a national government with only a few enumerated powers to a national government of general and unlimited powers. This is because BBAs substitute a “budget” for the enumerated powers; and accordingly, the national government would become lawfully authorized to spend money on whatever they put in the Budget!
That unlimited spending power on whatever they want is what would transform the national government into one of general and unlimited powers.
To add insult to injury, while all versions of a BBA pretend to limit spending; they actually permit increases in spending and increases in debt whenever a majority votes to do so. 6
When the history of our time is written, do not let it be said that the American People were too lazy and stupid to be free. Do not let tricksters take away our glorious Heritage. Wake up! Stop applications for a convention for a BBA from being passed in your State. If your State has already passed such an application, educate your State legislators and get them to rescind it.
1 The constitutional powers of the national government were supposed to be exercised with the proceeds of excise taxes & impost tariffs, with any shortfall being made up by an apportioned assessment on the States based on population.
2 The powers of State governments are also restricted by the federal Constitution: The list of prohibited powers at Art. I, §10, and by those few powers delegated exclusively to the national government.
3 HERE is the proof of the original intent of the interstate commerce clause.
4 The 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments increased the powers and spending of the federal government by expanding federal powers & litigation against the States and The People. It was necessary to amend the Constitution to remedy the defect of slavery; but there was a better way than the 13th -15th Amendments.
5 HERE is a helpful site for locating early Acts of Congress. Once you have the title and date of an Act, you can find the official source at the Library of Congress: e.g., THIS provides what one needs to find the official edition HERE.
6 Compact for America’s pretended BBA is actually a tricky device for imposing a national sales tax or value added tax on the American People – on top of the income tax – and does nothing to limit federal spending. Yet deluded State Legislators are now proposing it in Michigan as SB 306. You can find a short and simple section by section analysis of Compact for America’s BBA HERE.
Searching for “Marriage” in the Fourteenth Amendment
By Publius Huldah.
During April 2015, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v Hodges and consolidated cases. The questions presented for the Court to decide are: 1
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” [emphasis mine] 3
Obviously, §1 says nothing about “marriage” or “homosexuality”. So how can it be said to authorize the supreme Court to FORCE States to accept same sex marriage?
Simple! All they have to do is redefine “liberty” in §1 to get it to mean whatever they need it to mean in order to get the result they want in the cases before them.
And that is precisely what the supreme Court has been doing. In Roe v. Wade (1973), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “privacy”, and “privacy” means you can kill your baby. The Court said under Part VIII of their Opinion:
“…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy…”
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “consulting adults have the right to engage in private acts of homosexual sodomy”:
“We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…” (1st para under II)
“…The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct …” (3rd para up from end) [emphasis mine]
Do you see? The supreme Court uses the word, “liberty”, in §1 of the 14th Amendment to justify practices they approve of and want to force everybody else to accept. 4
And by claiming that these practices constitute “liberty rights” which arise under §1 of the 14th Amendment, they evade the constitutional limits on their judicial power.
I’ll show you.
The Judicial Power of the Federal Courts is Strictly Limited by The Constitution!
The Constitution does not permit federal courts to hear any case the Judges want to hear. Instead, a case must fall within one of a few categories before federal courts have jurisdiction to hear it.
Article III, §2, clause 1, lists the cases federal courts have the delegated authority to hear. They may hear only cases:
Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 83 (8th para):
“…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction…” [emphasis mine]
If a case does not fit within one of these categories, federal courts may not lawfully hear it.
In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton explains the categories of cases over which federal Courts have jurisdiction.
Since the “right” to same sex marriage is claimed to arise under §1 of the 14th Amendment, we will focus on Hamilton’s discussion of cases “arising under this Constitution”; or, as Hamilton puts it, cases:
“…which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” (2nd para) [emphasis mine]
“Expressly contained”. Hamilton then gives examples of such cases: If a State violates the constitutional provisions which prohibit States from imposing duties on imported articles, or from issuing paper money [Art. I, §10], the federal courts are in the best position to overrule infractions which are “in manifest contravention of the articles of Union. [i.e., Constitution]”
Do you see?
So! Where are provisions addressing marriage and homosexuality “expressly contained” in our Constitution?
The answer any competent 8th grader should be able to give is, “Nowhere!”
Fabrication of “constitutional rights” in order to Usurp Judicial Power.
So now you see how Justices on the supreme Court evaded the constitutional limits on their judicial Power: They fabricated individual “constitutional rights” so that they could then pretend that the cases “arise under the Constitution”!
But power over abortion, homosexuality, and marriage is nowhere in our Constitution delegated to the national government over the Country at Large. 5
The supreme Court has usurped power over these objects. Their opinions are void for lack of jurisdiction and are proper objects of nullification. 6
It is time for The People and The States to man-up and smack down the supreme Court. Scrape the Court’s barnacles off Our Constitution! State Legislatures must make laws directing all State and local governments and Citizens to ignore such usurpatious opinions of the supreme Court.
1 The briefs of the parties are HERE. The Questions Presented are set forth on pages 2 & 3.
2 If a same-sex marriage is contracted in one State pursuant to the laws of that State, are other States obligated, under the “full faith and credit clause”, to acknowledge the marriage as valid? Article IV, §1 states:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” [boldface mine]
At the time of our Framing, “marriage” does not appear to have been encompassed within “public Act or record”. In Federalist No. 42 (next to last para), Madison comments on the clause in connection with criminal and civil justice. An Act of the First Congress (May 26, 1790) which implemented the clause addresses laws made by State legislatures. An amendment to the 1790 Act (March 27, 1804), addresses “records” which may be kept in any public office of the State. But this cannot have included marriage records because a number of the original 13 States recognized common law marriage. And even for States which required formalities (e.g., Virginia), marriages could be accomplished by publication of banns and subsequent recordation in church and parish records – which were not “public records”. Marriage licenses issued by the States were a later development. The meaning of the clause which prevailed when the Constitution was drafted and ratified remains until changed by formal Amendment to the Constitution. So the full faith and credit clause does NOT require States to recognize marriages contracted under the laws of other States.
3 Professor Raoul Berger shows in Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the purpose of §1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights.
Professor Berger shows in Chapter 11 (page 222 of his book) that “due process” is a term with a “precise technical import” going back to the Magna Charta. It means that a person’s life, liberty or property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! Berger stresses that “due process of law” refers only to trials – to judicial proceedings in courts of justice. It does not involve judicial power to override State Laws!
In short, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from being lynched, imprisoned, or having their stuff taken away except pursuant to the judgment of their peers after a fair trial! It had nothing to do with “liberating” the American People from moral laws established thousands of years ago.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is badly written, uses vague terminology, and violates the “expressly contained” rule. One has to read, as Professor Berger did, the discussions in Congress and the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1864 to know what § 1 is about. But our moral and spiritual decline began in the early 1800s; from there, intellectual collapse quickly follows.
4 They even claim the right to keep on redefining “liberty” to include additional practices they might in the future want to force everyone to accept. They said in Lawrence v. Texas:
“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. (majority opinion, next to last para) [emphasis mine].
5 Because Congress has “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over the federal enclaves described at Art. I, §8, next to last clause; Congress may make laws addressing these objects for those limited geographical areas. See also Art. IV, §3, cl 2. And pursuant to Art. I, §8, cl. 14, Congress may make laws addressing these objects for active duty military personnel.
6 The short and clear paper HERE proves that nullification of unconstitutional acts of the national government is the remedy advised by our Framers. One cannot honestly dispute this. PH