The only way such a convention could result in something that our AG, law enforcement, etc would enforce, is if we give the banker criminals everything they want and then let them go to their "palatial" hideouts. Wow, what a great idea. Sarcasm intended.
If they do that convention, you can take it to the bank all of the Bill of Rights will be gutted and then all powers will be turned over to the feds, the people will be chattel owned by the state. A serf system will have been restored and probably America will revert back to a commonwealth status. All power to declare war will be give to the President and he can change laws with a secret signing of an executive order.
BOTTOM LINE? They need to do their evil deeds to us "LEGALLY" or else we are on the high ground, and that Article V convention is to make all they plan to do "legal" and to provide cover for their coup and take over of this nation. I do not know why Dr. Vieira did not discuss this. It is obvious to anyone who has been deeply involved as Dr. Vieira has over these many years.
There is absolutely no other reason for this convention. They HAVE TO GET OUR GUNS, or their game and plans are over, and there is no other way to get them, then to make them illegal. Right now, just the fact that we have our guns "legally" has stopped them from doing anything..... and that is obvious by their obsession in trying to grab them legally and they can't.
We know it and they know it. Remember, neither Russia, nor China will occupy this nation after a war, unless the PTB disarm us. As the Japanese said "There will be a sniper behind every bush and tree". Its why Hitler had to grab the guns so the allies could occupy Europe without losing men to sniper fire. So, NO ARTICLE V CONVENTION.
ARTICLE V CONVENTION: A TITANIC IRRELEVANCE
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin263.htm
By
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.,
Ph.D., J.D.
April 7, 2014
April 7, 2014
NewsWithViews.com
_christy_constitution_xl.jpg)
The
more I inflict upon myself the details of the on-going, extensive, and
increasingly acrimonious debate about the supposed merits or demerits
of what is called an “Article V Convention of the States”,
the more my mind returns to the scene I have imagined taking place on
Titanic.
Having struck the iceberg, the great liner is down fifteen degrees by the head, and sinking fast, while in the Grand Salon her designer Mr. Andrews, Captain Smith, and a gaggle of marine engineers are discussing a new ship, to be built according to a new design which supposedly will obviate the flaw in Titanic that contributed to her demise.
While in theory this discussion might have been very illuminating to the participants, it obviously would otherwise have been an irrelevance which could have saved neither Titanic nor a single soul who went down with her.
Having struck the iceberg, the great liner is down fifteen degrees by the head, and sinking fast, while in the Grand Salon her designer Mr. Andrews, Captain Smith, and a gaggle of marine engineers are discussing a new ship, to be built according to a new design which supposedly will obviate the flaw in Titanic that contributed to her demise.
While in theory this discussion might have been very illuminating to the participants, it obviously would otherwise have been an irrelevance which could have saved neither Titanic nor a single soul who went down with her.
This, it seems to me, presents a perfect parallel to the present “Article V Convention” debate—a debate so completely out of touch with the actual situation now confronting this country, that one wonders how anyone could take it seriously as an observer, let alone participate in it. Consider the following:
•
First, the “Article V Convention” debate does not address
the immediate issue of the looming national economic crisis about which
every informed observer is warning this country in no uncertain terms.
The General Government is buried under some 200+ trillion “dollars”
worth of unfunded long-term liabilities. This is an unpayable sum by
anyone’s calculus. The failure to pay it will have catastrophic
economic, social, and political consequences.
The problem will not be solved by Congress. In fact, Congress is making the situation worse. The debt is the great rent in America’s ship of state through which economic dissolution is pouring in. Congress proposes to fix this problem by borrowing more money which can never be repaid. This is equivalent to the lunatic notion that blowing off the rear quarter of Titanic would have saved the ship by allowing the water surging in at the bow to flow out through the new hole at the stern!
The problem will not be solved by Congress. In fact, Congress is making the situation worse. The debt is the great rent in America’s ship of state through which economic dissolution is pouring in. Congress proposes to fix this problem by borrowing more money which can never be repaid. This is equivalent to the lunatic notion that blowing off the rear quarter of Titanic would have saved the ship by allowing the water surging in at the bow to flow out through the new hole at the stern!
If
this were not enough, almost all Americans are utterly unprepared to
deal with the consequences of the depression, hyperinflation, or combination
of the two which collapse of the national economy will cause.
Nothing anyone has written in favor of an “Article V Convention” has suggested how any new amendment to the Constitution would deal with this virtual Marianas’ Trench of unpreparedness. And especially how it would deal with this danger right now, not at some distant point in the future after the crisis has broken out and hurled the entire country into chaos.
Nothing anyone has written in favor of an “Article V Convention” has suggested how any new amendment to the Constitution would deal with this virtual Marianas’ Trench of unpreparedness. And especially how it would deal with this danger right now, not at some distant point in the future after the crisis has broken out and hurled the entire country into chaos.
And if that were not more than enough, the top noises in the Disgrace of Columbia are even now feverishly preparing to impose so-called “martial law” throughout America when the economic catastrophe strikes—in which event, of course, the Constitution will effectively (if illegally) be set aside, and all talk of an “Article V Convention” (or of the ratification of amendments proposed at such a shindig) will become blather even more worthless than it is now.
•
Second, even if some part of an “Article V Convention” were
addressed to the impending national economic crisis, the process could
not be made to work in time. Time may not be everything; but everything
depends upon time. The convention has to be called by the requisite
two thirds of the States; it has to be held, for who knows how long;
and the amendments it proposes have to be submitted to the States for
ratification.
One or more of the amendments necessary to deal with the crisis must be ratified by three fourths of the States. Each and every such amendment must then be enforced. How many years all this will take, and who will see that it is accomplished (especially with respect to enforcement), is anyone’s guess.
And guess is the appropriate word, because no one can possibly predict when, how, and to what end this pie-in-the-sky process can and will be put into effect. We do not have to guess, however, whether the national economic crisis is coming sooner, rather than later—and certainly sooner than any “Article V Convention” could produce any useful amendments to the Constitution which States in the requisite number will actually have ratified.
One or more of the amendments necessary to deal with the crisis must be ratified by three fourths of the States. Each and every such amendment must then be enforced. How many years all this will take, and who will see that it is accomplished (especially with respect to enforcement), is anyone’s guess.
And guess is the appropriate word, because no one can possibly predict when, how, and to what end this pie-in-the-sky process can and will be put into effect. We do not have to guess, however, whether the national economic crisis is coming sooner, rather than later—and certainly sooner than any “Article V Convention” could produce any useful amendments to the Constitution which States in the requisite number will actually have ratified.
•
Third, one of the more outspoken exponents of an “Article V Convention”
(Timothy Baldwin) himself tells us that “[i]t is time for the
States to ‘take matters into their own hands’ and quit waiting
for Congress to fix itself.” Yes, indeed, it is high time for
that. But the question remains, how best to do it? For quite a while,
I have been urging revitalization of “the Militia of the several
States” as the proper way for the States “to ‘take
matters into their own hands’” both in perfect accord with
the Constitution and in a manner which will have an immediate and beneficial
effect. It should be self-evident how, in both principle and practice,
revitalizing the Militia could solve the pressing problems an “Article
V Convention” could not possibly solve (and which its proponents
do not even claim it could solve).
Not
only is revitalization of the Militia the best way to overcome the unpreparedness
of the American people as a whole to cope with the effects of a national
economic crisis, it is the only way, almost by definition. If there
are constitutional institutions, other than the Militia, which are designed
to take in the entire adult population of this country—and organize,
equip, and train that population to deal with varied Local, State, and
National emergencies—I should like to know what they are. Certainly,
no new amendment of the Constitution has been suggested by the proponents
of an “Article V Convention” which would address the question
of Americans’ unpreparedness. So, even if an “Article V
Convention” were held, the Militia would nevertheless need to
be revitalized for the purpose of overcoming that deficiency as quickly
and thoroughly as possible.
In
addition, revitalization of the Militia is the only means available
to obviate the threat of “martial law”. As my forthcoming
book, By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial
Law”, will explain, “martial law” as most Americans
understand it is anti-constitutional bunkum. The only “martial”
institutions to which the Constitution delegates the authority and responsibility
“to execute the Laws of the Union” are the Militia.
So the
only constitutional form of “martial law”—that is,
“law” administered in a fully constitutional manner by some
“martial” institutions—must be executed by the Militia,
and only the Militia or only subject to the Militia’s control.
The Militia, of course, are comprised of We the People themselves. So,
if constitutional “martial law” had to be put into effect
as the result of a national economic crisis, it would be controlled
by the People themselves, and on that basis would hardly pose a threat
to the People, unless the People were so politically psychotic that
they would go about oppressing themselves.
Again, no new amendment of
the Constitution has been suggested by the proponents of an “Article
V Convention” which would address the question of “martial
law” (and no amendment is needed, either, because the Constitution
already provides sufficient authority to the Militia in that respect).
So, even if an “Article V Convention” were held, the Militia
would nevertheless need to be revitalized for the purpose of assuring
that “martial law” remained under the People’s control.
It
also should be obvious that revitalizing the Militia avoids the worst
practical problems associated with an “Article V Convention”.
In contrast to the process under Article V: (i) Under the present Constitution
revitalization of the Militia can be accomplished with no need for any
constitutional amendment, convention, or other extraordinary proceeding—a
single statute in each State being sufficient. (ii) Revitalization of
the Militia does not require two thirds, or three fourths, or even a
majority of the States to act in unison, but can be accomplished State
by State, one State at a time, no matter what other States do or refrain
from doing.
(iii) Revitalization of the Militia does not require any
participation by Congress. And (iv) revitalization of the Militia involves
direct participation by all of We the People, not just the few who might
be selected—by Heaven knows what sort of political swindle—as
delegates to a convention.
•
Fourth, even if all the warnings prove to be wrong, and no national
economic crisis breaks out after all, the Militia will still have to
be revitalized. The proponents of an “Article V Convention”
all claim that they wish to preserve the merits of the original Constitution,
and simply pear away by amendments the accretions of usurpation and
tyranny which have developed over the years, particularly at the level
of the General Government. If they are telling the truth, then they
must want to preserve—and to see properly enforced—the Second
Amendment and the Militia Clauses of the original Constitution. For
none of them has suggested that some new amendment should repeal those
provisions.
What,
though, does the Second Amendment tell us? That “[a] well regulated
Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”.
“Necessary”, not optional. Which is also why the original
Constitution incorporates the Militia as permanent parts of the federal
system. Are the Second Amendment and the original Constitution both
wrong? If not, then why are the proponents of an “Article V Convention”
not expending at least some of their considerable energies to revitalize
the Militia?
Why should anyone concern himself with amendments to the
Constitution, the value of which is debatable, when the institutions
which the Constitution describes as “necessary”, and the
value of which is therefore beyond debate, remain moribund in every
State? Should not everyone’s priority be to revitalize the “necessary”
institutions before taking on arguably unnecessary (and perhaps counterproductive)
tasks? Or are we to accept the glaring self-contradiction that, although
the Militia are “necessary”, nevertheless no need exists
to revitalize them? Can the Militia be “necessary” and yet
“unnecessary” at the very same time?!
Perhaps
some proponents of an “Article V Convention” do not believe
that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to
the security of a free State”. If so, they should candidly describe
what they do consider “necessary” for that purpose, and
just how the new amendments they propose will achieve that goal even
while the Second Amendment and the Militia Clauses of the original Constitution
are left unenforced.
Inasmuch as the overriding purpose of the Constitution
as a whole is precisely to guarantee “the security of a free State”
to all Americans, it would seem that if the Second Amendment and the
Militia Clauses are not to be enforced, then something absolutely needs
to be included in the compendium of new amendments in order to perform
their erstwhile function. I, for one, wait with breathless anticipation
for the proponents of an “Article V Convention” to describe
the new amendments which they claim will serve that end. (VN: if they do not currently enforce that which has already been passed, then what guarantee do we have, that they will enforce any changes to that previous document?)
•
Fifth and last, NewsWithViews readers have been instructed by one of
the foremost advocates of an “Article V Convention” that
we all need to be “pragmatic”. Now, one might dismiss such
a recommendation with the old saw that “the problem with pragmatism
is that it does not work”. But, being scientifically trained myself,
I am inclined to perform the experiment and see if the results predicted
by theory are confirmed in practice.
The Constitution tells us that
“[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the
security of a free State”. To test that theory, one needs to have
“[a] well regulated Militia”. To have “[a] well regulated
Militia” today requires the revitalization of the Militia, State
by State. Once that experiment has been performed, either the States
which revitalize their Militia will achieve, or at least move in the
direction of, “the security of a free State”, or they will
not.
The experiment will verify or falsify the theory. And that fairly
quickly, in decided contrast to the elongated process of an “Article
V Convention”. So, as “pragmatists” to the extent
of being willing to test the theory of “pragmatism”, why
do we not perform the experiment of revitalizing the Militia—even
in just a single State—and see what happens? If the experiment
succeeds, it may obviate the supposed need for an “Article V Convention”
entirely, or at a minimum put into sharper focus than we have now what
ought to be done through such a convention.
If the experiment fails,
it may convince the opponents of an “Article V Convention”
to change their minds—for if the Constitution could be so wrong
as to describe the Militia as “necessary to the security of a
free State” when they are not, it could very well be wrong in
many other particulars, and therefore might need a comprehensive overhaul.
In
any event, let us not try to “fix” a tool which is not broken;
and let us determine whether the tool is really broken by putting it
to its prescribed use, and gauging the results against the promises
made by the manufacturer.
To
be fair to the proponents of an “Article V Convention”,
I must add that most of the opponents of such a convention, too, seem
to have missed the constitutional point I am trying to make. America’s
problem is that We the People who ordained and established the Constitution
have defaulted on their sovereign responsibility to enforce it. And
not just indirectly through their careless selection of incompetent
and even disloyal “representatives”. But by themselves directly.
After all, the Constitution explicitly provides for, and expects, its
enforcement by the People through delegation to the Militia of the authority
and responsibility, the power and the duty, “to execute the Laws
of the Union”. To execute that power and perform that duty the
People need to have their Militia extant, operative, and effective.
This can be accomplished without any amendments, conventions, or other
essentially “Star Trek” science-fiction schemes to refashion
the Constitution. But it will require that the People demand it.
© 2014 Edwin Vieira, Jr.
- All Rights Reserved
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has
practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme
Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases
leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education,
Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America
v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on
the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors,
may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their
employment.
He has written numerous monographs
and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county.
His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces
of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States
Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American
monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us
He is also the co-author (under
a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER:
A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash
of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com
His latest book is: "How
To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary"
... and Constitutional
"Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms...
He can be reached at his new
address:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
I really doubt if your full quote of Dr Vieira's article article is in keeping with any US copyright law. You might consider quoting parts of it and commenting on those part. Providing a link is a good idea. I read the original article and found it problematic.
ReplyDeleteAs for your original topic, there is a value in an Article V Convention of States. That would be to add enforcement of the existing Constitution. As you and Dr Vieira both recognize, the lack of effective enforcement is a key problem with the Constitution. A law that is not effectively enforced is not really a law, but a suggestion. Because the Constitution is not effectively enforced on government office holders, it is violated with great regularity. Until people pull their heads out of wherever they have them and decide to fix this problem with the Constitution, the abuses of the Constitution will continue until there is nothing left of the Constitution.
The question of the day is whether we will man up and fix this problem, or will we stand down and continue on with business as usual. I vote for fixing it, how about you?
It's a common and invalid belief that the Article V Convention can re-write the Constitution, when in actuality it's nothing but a forum for proposals. In that sense, it's nothing but a public examination of the Constitution. Whatever is passed out of the convention comes back to WTP to consider for ratification. In other words, this feature of the Constitution embodies our ultimate right--to alter or abolish a government that no longer obeys the Constitution. So to those who say "no thanks" out of fear, you've been brainwashed, purposefully, so that you'll dismiss the very thing that will break the status quo so that it can be reformed. And if you say you don't trust the People, again, you don't understand what you're saying. Do you think members of Congress and the Supreme Court want to sit down with the American public to examine what they torture?
ReplyDeleteThe reason a state may not rescind, is because you then run into the problem of estoppel. Besides this legal fact, more importantly, because the convention clause embodies the ultimate right of the People, and is nothing but good for the People, any sign to rescind is a sign of corruption.
The requirement of a super-majority of 75% approval for ratification means that whatever the topic, you must get all one side of the political spectrum, plus at least half the other, or the proposal goes nowhere. In other words, this is a political principle that makes it mathematically impossible for a society to harm themselves. You may get this partisan issue or that to get fifty-percent approval, but very difficult to achieve 75% consensus. In that sense, one might just look at the Article V Convention as nothing more than a rudimentary consensus machine.
The reason those who currently hold the reins of power don't want a convention, is because of what the process entails. A bunch of sovereign "citizens" are going to become empowered.
The Federalist Papers, the persuading arguments to ratify the Constitution, the final argument (85), written by Hamilton, in essence says: Hey if this new centralized government ever goes south, we have the convention clause. The name of the game for the Federalists ever since has been to prevent a convention. In other words the convention clause of Article V is the fly in the ointment to some, and the diamond in the rough to others--Jeffersonians.
You make a good case Scott and under different circumstances I would absolutely be convinced based on your argument, that it was the only way to go.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in order to do that, I would have to see who the players were that would control the entire process from beginning to end. These cretins doing this to us, are just as able to do what it is you suggest we do, only do it against the peoples best interests. They are also Americans and usually control the process in anything these days and always make it fit their agenda.
I would love to be convinced, so if you have some info on how to avoid my concerns I would love to hear them.
John De Herrera, I would love to see the section that says its only a public examination of the constitution. And what is WTP? I am in brain dump right now, so forgive me if I need some help here. Once I know what WTP is, then I will answer your comment. Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you.
ReplyDeleteThe Article V Convention is a public examination of the Constitution because whatever is proposed must first be discussed and deliberated over, right? That's what I mean by a "public examination." WTP is We The People.
ReplyDeleteWell, we're hoping you've realized the errors of those who believe the Article V Convention is a bad idea. For some reason I am not notified when a new comment is posted here, so feel free to flip me an email at john[at]cc2.org
ReplyDeleteCheers
John, I have taken your email address and will send you a note so you have mine, but mine is on the blog and I should get it. I do not know why you are not getting a notification of comments since we do not do that, the blog does that for us. I will ask them to make sure you get notified. I am sending a copy of this response to you.
ReplyDeleteI do not think either you or Scott understand what I am saying, so I will try it another way. When a nation has been fully infiltrated in every dept, including enforcement, Justice Dept, Attorney General, etc, then no matter what you do, no matter what you review, its a waste of time, if you do not change who the players are that are creating the criminal activities that we are experiencing in the first place.
Further, who gets to select who these participants are in "the forum for proposals" And who gets to be part of the "public" examination? The same people who select our candidates for both parties??? So that no matter who wins, the criminal enterprises continue unabated?
Please, we are not stupid, trusting, yes, that is definitely changing and rapidly at that. I look forward to you email comments as well.