Lanterns: The Annotated Article V

Blog

The Annotated Article V

At present, there is a great deal of misinformation from groups on the left and right jockeying to steal some attention off the coat-tails of Convention of States Project, the grassroots organization whose powerful rise has so far convinced twelve state legislatures to pass its resolution under Article V of the Constitution. When this resolution is passed by 34 states or 2/3rds of the 50 states, an amendments convention will be called wherein all 50 states will send delegates to a convention to propose amendments A) limiting the size, scope, and jurisdiction of the federal government, B) imposing term limits on Congress and federal officials, and C) placing controls on taxation and spending. 

Many misunderstandings propagated by 230 opposed organizations under George Soros’ direction on the Left, and the John Birch Society, Eagle Forum, and National Association for Gun Rights on the Right, are clarified by an honest and clear reading of the text of Article V itself.

Historical background of the meaning of individual words in the text helps clarify the rest. To this end, I present a reference piece, the Annotated Article V, containing a large number of footprints tied directly to the constitutional language as well as a grammatical diagram of the article illustrating the composition of the language used. 

For those new to the power of an Article V amendments convention and Convention of States Project’s efforts to secure one, this video helps explain concisely. 

 

The Annotated Article V:

A Textual Guide

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states[i], shall[ii] call[iii] a convention[iv] for proposing[v] amendments[vi], which, in either case[vii], shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part[viii] of this Constitution[ix], when ratified[x] by the legislatures of three fourths[xi] of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress[xii]; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

[i] As can be seen from the plain language, Congress itself “shall propose” or “shall call.” Just as Congress has itself proposed amendments, just the same the states propose amendments in the called convention. Congress proposes amendments in its own session; the states propose amendments in a convention.

[ii] Congress is constitutionally required to call the convention. Congress itself has no legal authority to block the convention. Cf. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 85: “In opposition to the probability of subsequent amendments, it has been urged that the persons delegated to the administration of the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority of which they were once possessed. For my own part I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers; and on this account alone, I think there is no weight in the observation just stated. I also think there is little weight in it on another account. The intrinsic difficulty of governing thirteen States at any rate, independent of calculations upon an ordinary degree of public spirit and integrity, will, in my opinion constantly impose on the national rulers the necessity of a spirit of accommodation to the reasonable expectations of their constituents. But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States which at present amount to nine, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.'' The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress "shall call a convention.'' Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”

[iii] Congress’ role in the Article V convention of states process is strictly ministerial. To “call” means to declare simply. Congressional Research Service report R42592 states "Congress has historically laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including receiving, judging, and recording state applications; establishing procedures to summon a convention; setting the amount of time allotted to its deliberations, determining the number and selection process of its delegates; setting internal convention procedures, and providing arrangement for the formal transmission any proposed amendments to the states.”

[iv] “In traditional Anglo-American political usage, a “convention” is an assembly, other than a legislature, convened to address short-term political problems,” states constitutional scholar Robert G. Natelson. Many non-Article V conventions of states have been held over our country’s history, both prior to and after the Philadelphia constitutional convention. The standard rule of these conventions is that each state has equal suffrage at convention, i.e., “one state, one vote.” Therefore, worries that a convention of states would be dominated by population-dense states like New York, Texas, Florida, or California should be assuaged by this long-standing historical precedent. The “Proposed Rules” put forth by the Convention of States Project include this provision.

[v] The purpose of the convention is here limited to the endeavor of proposal. The states, at the convention, have no more power than to propose amendments that must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states to become valid as constitutional law. This obfuscation has its origins in the 20th century. The“runaway convention” myth originated to protect the highly controversial ruling of Roe v. Wade, against an Article V application then being pushed for its repeal. Surprisingly, supposedly pro-constitutional, pro-life groups like the John Birch Society and Eagle Forum have anchored their arguments in this same idea.

[vi] Note that nowhere in this wording does Article V grant the states the authority to write a new constitution. The language is plain and explicit. The purpose of the convention is “for proposing amendments” to the existing constitution.

[vii] The equivalency between the two modes of amendment proposal is made explicit here. Any amendments proposed either the congressional or states convention method are equally valid “as part of this Constitution,” provided they are ratified.

[viii] Once again, note that amendments are to become “part” of the existing constitution. Article V is therefore not a provision within the Constitution for its own dissolution. Opponents of Convention of States propagate the idea that the 1886 Philadelphia convention was a “runaway” convention originally intended only to amend the Articles of Confederation. This is not true. One may look at the commissions of the states assigned to their delegates to the constitutional convention. The language is taken from the very broad language of the Annapolis convention.

[ix] If Article V permitted a “runaway convention,” or was an avenue to a “con-con,” i.e. “constitutional convention,” then the qualifier, “as part of this Constitution” would not have been written. No new constitution would be part of the old constitution.

[x] Only ratification has the authority to give a proposed amendment the force of law. The argument has been proposed by the John Birch Society and other opponents that once in convention commissioners can change the ratification number from 3/4ths of the states (38) to whatever it wants it to be. This is patently nonsensical by virtue of the fact that it is written here in Article V that 3/4ths of the states are needed for ratification. Because the ratification qualification is constitutional, it would require a constitutional amendment to the ratification threshold in Article V. In order to take force of law, this amendment would first have to pass the established threshold of 3/4ths of the states in order to take force of law.

[xi] 3/4ths of our present 50 states is 38 states. This means it only takes 13 states to block any proposed amendment from becoming law. Those who fear the 2nd Amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights could be threatened by this process should be completely assured that certainly 13 states would oppose repealing any one of the first ten amendments. Moreover, such dangerous ideas are fully precluded from the limited subject of the Convention of States application: amendments which “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”

[xii] Apart from the compelled ministerial duty of Congress to call a states convention, this is the only other role of Congress in the process. Congress is constitutionally invested with the authority to name the date and place of the convention, then they sit along the sidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written by Aaron Dukette

Aaron Dukette is an educator who lives in eastern Kentucky with his dachshund puppy Doe.

24 Responses

AAron that was a well written and well thought out article. My concern is that the establishment politicians are in fact a solid majority against the true Constitutional Conservatives and we have yet to unseat the RINO Republicans to be able to have enough conservatives in power. A call to a Constitutional Convention does not bypass this disparity and can backfire on us. I believe our focus must be on 2018 to gain as many true Constitutional Conservatives in power so that we can pass Constitutional Amendments that would call for 1- Balanced Budget, 2- Declaring the unborn child to be a person and citizen at the moment of conception. 3- To ratify strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and stop the judiciary from legislating from the bench, 4- To return the fiscal responsibility of our nation to the House of Representatives. 5- To establish clearer guidelines against economic monopolies. 6- To outlaw lobbyists, 7- To establish limits in term policies for Senate and the House. 8- To outlaw pork- belly legislatures. 9- To require proof of citizenship in voting. To name a few.

I would agree with you on our need to keep pushing for change at the federal level, in Congress, but I don't have much faith that that is going to work. The Tea Party tried doing this, and look at what we have now. The GOP has the court, presidency, both houses of Congress, and still no control over the debt. It is vital to understand, however, that an Article V amendments convention is NOT a constitutional convention. The difference between the two is enormous. The one has the power to propose amendments specifically to limit the power of the federal government. The other is the creation of a whole new constitution. Keep in mind that any proposed amendments that make it out of convention still require ratification by 3/4ths of the states. What backfiring do you think would happen in that case when 13 states can shoot down an amendment?

This post contains several falsehoods. It is offensive that it purports to be a systematic analysis of Article V yet it makes broad assumptions not supported by documentation. 1. Congress has FULL authority in formation of the convention. The CRS reference posted clearly supports this. Apparently the best and brightest didn't prepare this post. That's OK though for we've captured screen prints of the error. The Supreme Court has already held that Congress defines the convention. "ministerial" is not in the text of Article v. "As a rule, the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require, and Article V is no exception to the rule." -- DILLON v. GLOSS, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo00q3T6uq4 - Video showing Congress calls and Natelson is wrong "And the few cases that have been asked to deal with issues comparable to the one now tendered to this Court have uniformly held questions as to compliance with Article V's requirements are within the sole province of Congress and not the courts -- in the language that has come to characterize such issues, they are political" (that is, nonjusticiable) questions.” -- United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Wayne Wojtas, Defendant, No. 85 CR 48, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 611 F. Supp. 118; 1985 U.S. District. Lexis 19914, May 10, 1985 "Congress, however, has historically interpreted the language authorizing it to “call” an Article V Convention as providing a broad mandate to establish standards and procedures for such an assembly. In its 1984 report on S. 119, 98th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed its judgment that ... [a]s a necessary incident of its responsibility to “call” the convention, Congress must have the authority to determine that the constitutional preconditions exist for such a convention... The Congress, as well, clearly possesses the authority to set forth the necessary and attendant details of the convention.” -- Constitutional Convention Implementation Act of 1984, 98th Cong., 2nd sess. S.Rept. 98-594, p. 21.

Any Article V convention will NOT be one state one vote. In fact, the attorney of refernce for COS even says so. Ooops! – Convention advocates are propagating what they are being told without checking facts. Debate on the Federal Convention Act of 1973 showed Congress will assert an Electoral College delegate allocation model and with few delegates, small state's input to a convention will be ignored. "Interstate conventions traditionally have determined issues according to a “one state/one vote,” although a convention is free to change the rule of suffrage." Dr. Natelson writing in the ALEC Handbook, "Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States,” a Handbook for State Lawmakers, 2013 version, Section E, page 15.

The 1787 Convention greatly exceeded their authority and THAT is the precedent that any new convention will use to do what it wants. The line spacing on these comments is bad, but here are numerous references documenting how the 1787 Convention exceeded their authority: "In one particular IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE CONVENTION HAVE [did] DEPARTED FROM THE TENOR OF THEIR COMMISSION. Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation [of the legislatures] of all the states, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed [by the people,] and may be carried into effect by nine States only.” -- James Madison Federalist 40 (Emphasis mine) “...it is therefore essential that such changes be instituted by some informal and unauthorized propositions….” -- James Madison Federalist 40 "The States sent us here to provide for the exigences of the Union. To rely on & propose any plan not adequate to these exigences, merely because it was not clearly within our powers, would be to sacrifice the means to the end." -- Mr. Hamilton, Madison's Notes, June 18, 1787 "How did the federal Convention meet? From the beginning of time, in any age or country, did ever men meet under so loose, uncurbed a commission? There was nothing to restrain them but their characters and reputation. They could not organize a system without defects. This cannot, then, be perfect.” — Mr. Monroe, Virginia Ratifying Convention "At first Mason acted hand in hand with delegates who wanted to create a substantially stronger central government. He apparently supported the plan of government the Virginia delegation proposed in the opening days of the Convention, a plan that closely resembled Madison’s pre-Convention ideas and included a congressional veto on state laws. He was ready to tear up the Confederation and start over. When a New York delegate said the Convention had authority only to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation, Mason answered him: There were, he said, crises when “all the ordinary cautions yielded to public necessity.” — Maier, Pauline (2011-06-01). Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (p. 42). Simon & Schuster. "Does not the thirteenth article of the Confederation expressly require that no alteration shall be made without the unanimous consent of all the states?” — Mr. Madison, Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 5-6 June 1788 “I would make this enquiry about of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal convention…I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We the People?…who authorized them to speak the language of We the People instead of We the States?… The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear…The federal convention ought to have amended the old system –for this purpose they were solely delegated. The object of their mission extended to no other considerations.” — Patrick Henry – June 4, 1788, Speech at The Virginia Ratifying Convention "The States sent us here to provide for the exigencies of the Union. To rely on and propose any plan not adequate to these exigencies, merely because it was not clearly within our powers, would be to sacrifice the means to the end. It may be said, that the States cannot ratify a plan not within the purview of the Article of the Confederation providing for alterations and amendments.” — Monday June 18th, 1787, Madison, James (2005-12-01). Journal of the Federal Convention: Volumes 1 & 2 (Kindle Locations 2072-2075). Packard Technologies. Kindle Edition. "Upon due consideration of the Constitution under which we now Act, some of us were clearly of opinion that the 13th article of the Confederation precluded us from giving an opinion concerning a plan subversive of the present system and eventually forming a New Confederacy of Nine instead of 13 States....This compromise was settled and they took the opportunity of inserting the word Unanimously, which applied only to simple transmission, hoping to have it mistaken for an Unanimous approbation of the thing” — Richard Henry Lee to George Mason, 1 Oct. 1787 Mason Papers 3:996–97 “The Convention of 1787 was called “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Article of Confederation.” — Associate Justice Goldberg "General PINCKNEY expressed a doubt whether the act of Congress recommending the Convention, or the commissions of the Deputies to it, would authorize a discussion of a system founded on different principles from the Federal Constitution. Mr. GERRY seemed to entertain the same doubt.” — Madison, James (2005-12-01). Journal of the Federal Convention: Volumes 1 & 2 (Kindle Locations 643-645). Packard Technologies. Kindle Edition. “On 26 and 27 September Congress debated the manner in which it would send the Constitution to the states. Critics of the Constitution wanted it transmitted to the state legislatures with an indication that the Convention had violated Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation and the congressional resolution of 21 February 1787.” — The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution Digital Edition, ed. John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladino, Richard Leffler, Charles H. Schoenleber and Margaret A. Hogan. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009 NOTE: This was reconstructed from the Journals of Congress, manuscript motions made in Congress, Congressman Melancton Smith’s notes of debates, Richard Henry Lee’s amendments, and the letterbooks of the Secretary of Congress. (This means that the Convention illegally changed the rules required to ratify any changes to the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, as well as the original charter from Congress for the Philadelphia Convention.) "He was decidedly of opinion that the power of the Convention was restrained to amendments of a Federal nature, and having for their basis the Confederacy in being. The acts of Congress, the tenor of the acts of the States, the commissions produced by the several Deputations, all proved this. And this limitation of the power to an amendment of the Confederacy marked the opinion of the States, that it was unnecessary and improper to go further. He was sure that this was the case with his State. New York would never have concurred in sending Deputies to the Convention, if she had supposed the deliberations were to turn on a consolidation of the States, and a National Government." — Saturday, 16 June, 1787 in James Madison's Journal describing the comments of Delegate John Lansing, Jr. from New York, who LEFT the Convention July 10th after realising they exceeded their authority. Source: Madison, James (2005-12-01). Journal of the Federal Convention "We are told that we assume the power, and that we are merely the agents and attorneys, of the people. Sir, we are the delegates of the people, chosen to act in their stead. We have the same power and the same right, within the scope of the business assigned to us, that they would have, were they all convened in this hall.” — Benjamin F. Butler, Massachusetts Convention of 1853. "THE ASSENT OF THE STATES, IN THEIR SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, IS IMPLIED IN CALLING A CONVENTION, AND THUS SUBMITTING THAT INSTRUMENT TO THE PEOPLE. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties. "The convention of Virginia had not the shadow of a legal, or constitutional form about it. It derived its existence and authority from a higher source; a power which can supersede all law, and annul the constitution itself — namely, the people, in their sovereign, unlimited, and unlimitable authority and capacity.” — McCulloch v. Maryland 4 Wheat. 316 1819 "Neither the calling of a convention, nor the convention itself is a proceeding under the constitution. It is over and beyond the constitution.” — Journal, 69th N. Y. Assembly, p. 919. "When a law becomes the instrumental process of amendment, it is not because the legislature possesses any inherent power to change the existing constitution THROUGH A CONVENTION, BUT BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY MEANS THROUGH WHICH AN AUTHORIZED CONSENT OF THE WHOLE PEOPLE, THE ENTIRE STATE, CAN BE LAWFULLY OBTAINED IN A STATE OF PEACE. ... If the legislature, possessing these powers of government, be unwilling to pass a law to take the sense of the people, ... the remedy is still in their own hands; they can elect new representatives that will." (EMPHASIS MINE) — Wells v. Bain (1872), 75 Pa. 39, 47-48. "During this debate, we were threatened that, if we did not agree to the system proposed, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another; and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed. Was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious state or states, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other states, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case. But suppose it to be true; it rendered it the more necessary that we should sacredly guard against a system which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the Constitution and government. In fine, sir, all [356] these threats were treated with contempt, and they were told that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the states meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this Convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the states would never trust another convention.” — The debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the federal Constitution, as recommended by the general convention at Philadelphia, in 1787. Together with the Journal of the federal convention, Luther Martin’s letter, Yates’s minutes, Congressional opinions, Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of ‘98-‘99, and other illustrations of the Constitution … 2d ed., with considerable additions. Collected and rev. from contemporary publications, by Jonathan Elliot. Pub. under the sanction of Congress. (1836), 5 vols. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1905#Elliot_1314-01_3767

Shawn, thanks for engaging in the conversation. I find it unfortunate that you opened this conversation with an insult to my intelligence because of your disagreement with the conclusions of the work. But, this is all fine and well. It appears you have written your own article in response, so we'll let readers read and make up their own minds. I appreciate your patriotism in caring about our country, although we disagree on solutions.

Aaron, I find it unfortunate that you insult Americans by portraying your article as an analysis and then provide several opinions absent facts. I know the Article V issue inside and out. It has been all I've worked on for 3-1/2 years. I've documented several false statements by COS people. YES, You could say I wrote an article because it is important to debunk COS propaganda thoroughly. BTW, the Philadelphia Convention was in 1787, not the 1800s. Have you seen my article documenting how COS leadership twisted Thomas Jefferson's words, communicating untrue sentiment to the 137 state legislators at the fake COS convention? Is this how they'll run a convention? Article: https://www.guardtheconstitution.com/2017/07/06/convention-of-states-falsifies-thomas-jeffersons-advice-2/20530

If there's even the remotest possibility of sabotage for a Constitutional meeting of state commissioners, fear mongers must milk it and insist we're better off to keep on the path of doing nothing different than the insane things we've done, letting the federal government in all its capacities get ever larger and more tyrannical. The devil you know vs. the devil you don't. We do know where we are and where we're headed if we continue without change. The original Constitution and its baseline principles from the Declaration of Independence are being shredded to extinction. Working to reestablish its originalist intents with the means given within it--Article V--is considered too much a slippery slope to dare to try. I say bring it on and let's see if the fear mongers have it right or not. We do not and will not believe their lies. If we fail, we will have failed magnificently. I believe we will be successful if we do everything good in our power and invoke Divine help once more as the Founders did when against all odds they beat the best army and navy in the world. If we don't even try to use the Founders' remedy, we deserve the results of our stupidity for failing to act when we could have won. www.conventionofstates.com

Carol Menges, our Constitution is under threat. Could we discuss facts instead of the COS training you get to apply Saul Alinsky tactics with the false "fear" drumbeat? If anything, the regular COS propaganda emails are what drives fear. Article V con con option was NOT to rein in government and in real terms it can not. All that is needed is already in the Constitution. Until COS explains why they did not tell the truth on several things, they should not be trusted, period: Documented falsehood: https://www.guardtheconstitution.com/2017/07/06/convention-of-states-falsifies-thomas-jeffersons-advice-2/20530 COS Lawyer doesn't know how to look up simple references: https://www.guardtheconstitution.com/2017/07/05/convention-of-states-constitutional-lawyer-publishes-invalid-reference/20469 I do love how you document the truth that COS just wants to take a big flyer putting the Constitution at risk. It is nice to have the truth for once. Goodness gracious great balls of fire, is that our Constitution burning down? Carol Menges QUOTED: "If we fail, we will have failed magnificently."

This vibe stinks.

Arron Duckett, Thank you for your article It obviously took time and great effort. I will come back and read it again another day. I am open to learning about all perspectives. I need to learn more in order to know where I stand. I know how much I don't know today.

Thanks, Josie!

Thanks for the article Aaron Dukette! And thanks to the Framers for Article V of the Constitution and for all the rest of it, all of them approving Article V. And thanks to all the legislatures of the original 13 colonies that after much time to consider the proposed document to then ratify it. And thanks to the other 37 states to date that have accepted that entire Constitution including Article V which of course provides an avenue reserved by the very states that ratified it to one day restrict an out of control Federal government as was mentioned by the Framers. And thanks to Shawn Meehan, of the inappropriately named site, 'guardtheconstituton', who has made it clear that he is way off base and guards nothing. Shawn, (The lady) doth protest too much, methinks. That is a figure of speech originally found as a quotation from the c.?1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare.[1] It is used in everyday speech to indicate doubt in someone's sincerity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks And there is certainly insincerity here. Shawn said "(This means that the Convention illegally changed the rules required to ratify any changes to the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, as well as the original charter from Congress for the Philadelphia Convention.)" Analyze what he said. The conclusion of that is that Shawn makes a case, not one that I agree with, but makes the case that the Constitution was illegally formed. And thus it is and has to be illegal. He insults the Framers, the Founders, all 13 ratifying states which certainly had time to make that same case if it were true (and it is not). And insults the 37 states later added. And also anyone such as Aaron Dukette and others supporting Article V OF the CONSTITUTION. Shawn doesn't actually "guardtheconstitution' as written, but his abrogated and revised version of it. The Constitution is about restricting the Federal government and about self government. Shawn is an obstacle in self government and has made that case here in a comment far longer than Article V itself. It is about Who Decides? And Shawn doesn't want you to decide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAEVecIqrns#t=7.271666 Americans used to govern themselves. When this nation was founded, the government acted only to protect life, liberty and property. Now, it has encroached into every area of life, so we endlessly debate the healthcare, education, and economic policies our so-called leaders hand down to us. However, the citizens should make these crucial decisions. Who decides? According to the founders and Constitution, we do. Let’s act like it. And let the reader decide.

Jerry Rowe, thank you so much for helping confirm for the crowd that COS is a dangerous move. See folks, Jerry is one of the COS social media spokespuppets. You'll see he refused to answer any of the documentation I posted reflecting serious credibility problems with COS leaders. Also, did I say the Constitution was illegally adopted or did I say the 1787 Convention exceeded their authority? See, the PEOPLE, the highest power in the land ratified the Constitution. That was in violation of the Articles of Confederation. They legally threw off the AOC, the constitution of the time. This is well documented. Folks, if you look at Jerry Rowe all they do is cut and paste this "they claim is was illegally adopted" line. The fact that he posts that when I did not say that, and fails to answer two very serious posts about deceptive communications by COS leadership, shows they are only about attacking opposition. They have nothing else. We have the solution #Article6Not5. Don't worry folks, the COS leaders will be further exposed very soon.

Jerry Rowe, thank you so much for helping confirm for the crowd that COS is a dangerous move. See folks, Jerry is one of the COS social media spokespuppets. You'll see he refused to answer any of the documentation I posted reflecting serious credibility problems with COS leaders. Also, did I say the Constitution was illegally adopted or did I say the 1787 Convention exceeded their authority? See, the PEOPLE, the highest power in the land ratified the Constitution. That was in violation of the Articles of Confederation. They legally threw off the AOC, the constitution of the time. This is well documented. Folks, if you look at Jerry Rowe all they do is cut and paste this "they claim is was illegally adopted" line. The fact that he posts that when I did not say that, and fails to answer two very serious posts about deceptive communications by COS leadership, shows they are only about attacking opposition. They have nothing else. We have the solution #Article6Not5. Don't worry folks, the COS leaders will be further exposed very soon.

Jerry Rowe, thank you so much for helping confirm for the crowd that COS is a dangerous move. See folks, Jerry is one of the COS social media spokespuppets. You'll see he refused to answer any of the documentation I posted reflecting serious credibility problems with COS leaders. Also, did I say the Constitution was illegally adopted or did I say the 1787 Convention exceeded their authority? See, the PEOPLE, the highest power in the land ratified the Constitution. That was in violation of the Articles of Confederation. They legally threw off the AOC, the constitution of the time. This is well documented. Folks, if you look at Jerry Rowe all they do is cut and paste this "they claim is was illegally adopted" line. The fact that he posts that when I did not say that, and fails to answer two very serious posts about deceptive communications by COS leadership, shows they are only about attacking opposition. They have nothing else. We have the solution #Article6Not5. Don't worry folks, the COS leaders will be further exposed very soon.

I found this to be an excellent, well written and accurate article. I am a grassroots COS supporter and volunteer. Those who choose to fear monger would be better served by explaining what they propose instead of "name calling" and endless rambling. For those who would like to educate themselves go to conventionofstates.com.

The ONLY solution the Founders gave us is in Article V. Shawn Meehan opposes Article V because it does not fit his narrative. Jerry Rowe has it correct. And one more thing, Shawn. you will be shown to be the fraud you are once REAL AMERICANS find out that Article V holds the key to solving the ills America has. Article 6 is nothing.

Rick Bulow, your post is unfortunate. What you should have written is something like, "Shawn I think what you are doing is fraudulent" which is a perfectly protected free speech comment, although ignorant and wrong as my above documentation posts clearly reflect. Sadly for you and your Convention of States organization, you chose to write, "Shawn. you will be shown to be the fraud you are...." You called ME a fraud plain and simple. That is NOT protected speech and clearly meets the legal definition of LIBEL: "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation." 1) Readers should see that such behavior, harassing, deflecting, not telling the truth, and failure to provide references is how many COS supporters operate. This clearly, in my opinion, makes them unable to be credible on this topic. 2) Mr. Bulow has consistently displayed what appears to be a lack of knowledge on the topic, attacking documented references with ignorant statements like, "Article 6 is nothing" no references provided. He appears full of frustration and hatred for those which do not agree with him. 3) I give notice here to Mr. Bulow that I am investigating legal action against him for his libel above. Those that want to yell or laugh at me should recall that I was sued personally by a COS lobbyist to shut me up when I did not libel or slander him. We got that case summarily dismissed even after the lobbyist appealed the first dismissal. So Mr. Bulow, I am quite familiar with libel and slander laws, SLAPP statutes and you have "screwed the pooch" here. You crossed the line from expressing a protected opinion about my statements and behavior into a clear libel of me. The only legal defense you have is to be able to prove to a court that I'm personally a fraud. I wish you luck with that. You should expect to hear from my council soon. I refuse to take such crap from anyone associated with COS or other Article V Constitution re-wrtiers.

Camp Constitution sponsored a speaking engagment for Robert Brown in New Hampshire and Maine back in January. We held a press conference at the Maine State House. While the state house media failed to show up, a number of Convention of States supporters were on hand. Mr. Brown did an excellent job answering the questions brought up by COS supporters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YinNWERm56Q

Let's get past all the personal attacks and the cherry picking of pieces of facts to prove a point or disprove others, as it seems the topic has gotten lost in the weeds. We either believe the constitution or we don't. We either want "we the people" involved in our government or we want to let the political elite continue to grow the size and power over "we the people".

Im with Jim Wall on this. Let me say in the very beginning I was interested in the article and learning but emediatly some guy starts calling the writer names and insulting him. I went to this guys other pages his other writing.. He calls other people names too..so much for learning another perspective. I just wanted to learn....FYI... was so turned off. Yuk.

“What was to be a relatively innocuous federal government, operating from a defined enumeration of specific grants of power, has become an ever-present and unaccountable force. It is the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider, and pension guarantor. Moreover, with aggrandized police powers, what it does not control directly it bans or mandates by regulation.” ? Mark R. Levin, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic What remedy is available to We the People? A conventionofstates.com. Why a conventionofstates.com ? “...small government gives you big freedoms--and Big Government leaves you with very little freedom. The opposite of Big Government is not small government, but Big Liberty. The bailout and the stimulus and the budget and the trillion-dollar deficits are not merely massive transfers from the most dynamic and productive sector to the least dynamic and productive. When governments annex a huge chunk of the economy, they also annex a huge chunk of individual liberty. You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of junkie and pusher--and you make it very difficult ever to change back.” ? Mark Steyn, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon Why not work with the Government to change direction? “It is folly to believe that Congress and the president, on their own, will make the necessary and difficult decisions to address the impending financial debacle. After all, they and their predecessors engineered the approaching tsunami. As the situation becomes direr, the federal government's actions will grow more oppressive.” ? Mark R. Levin, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic Why NOW ? “President Ronald Reagan cautioned that Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. ? Mark R. Levin, Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America "To sit back hoping that someday, someway, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last - but eat you he will" Ronald Reagan Wait for the Tyrannical Federal Government to devour the Civil Society or join us. “What was to be a relatively innocuous federal government, operating from a defined enumeration of specific grants of power, has become an ever-present and unaccountable force. It is the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider, and pension guarantor. Moreover, with aggrandized police powers, what it does not control directly it bans or mandates by regulation.” ? Mark R. Levin, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic What remedy is available to We the People? A conventionofstates.com. Why a conventionofstates.com ? “...small government gives you big freedoms--and Big Government leaves you with very little freedom. The opposite of Big Government is not small government, but Big Liberty. The bailout and the stimulus and the budget and the trillion-dollar deficits are not merely massive transfers from the most dynamic and productive sector to the least dynamic and productive. When governments annex a huge chunk of the economy, they also annex a huge chunk of individual liberty. You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of junkie and pusher--and you make it very difficult ever to change back.” ? Mark Steyn, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon Why not work with the Government to change direction? “It is folly to believe that Congress and the president, on their own, will make the necessary and difficult decisions to address the impending financial debacle. After all, they and their predecessors engineered the approaching tsunami. As the situation becomes direr, the federal government's actions will grow more oppressive.” ? Mark R. Levin, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic Why NOW ? “President Ronald Reagan cautioned that Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. ? Mark R. Levin, Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America "To sit back hoping that someday, someway, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last - but eat you he will" Ronald Reagan Wait for the Tyrannical Federal Government to devour the Civil Society or join us. http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=246073

Yes, We The People must get involved in government. Article 6 is the solution, not Article 5. You are being lied to. Check the record yourself. Article 5 is for defects. Look what COS is really doing: https://www.guardtheconstitution.com/2017/07/06/convention-of-states-falsifies-thomas-jeffersons-advice-2/20530

Great post. I support the tool the Framers gave us in Article V of the Constitution to restore limited government...because they had enough foresight to know this day would come. Learn more and sign the petition at www.conventionofstates.com

Great post. I support the tool the Framers gave us in Article V of the Constitution to restore limited government...because they had enough foresight to know this day would come. Learn more and sign the petition at www.conventionofstates.com

Great post. I support the tool the Framers gave us in Article V of the Constitution to restore limited government...because they had enough foresight to know this day would come. Learn more and sign the petition at www.conventionofstates.com

Great post. I support the tool the Framers gave us in Article V of the Constitution to restore limited government...because they had enough foresight to know this day would come. Learn more and sign the petition at www.conventionofstates.com

Great post. I support the tool the Framers gave us in Article V of the Constitution to restore limited government...because they had enough foresight to know this day would come. Learn more and sign the petition at www.conventionofstates.com

Great post. I support the tool the Framers gave us in Article V of the Constitution to restore limited government...because they had enough foresight to know this day would come. Learn more and sign the petition at www.conventionofstates.com

Great post. I support the tool the Framers gave us in Article V of the Constitution to restore limited government...because they had enough foresight to know this day would come. Learn more and sign the petition at www.conventionofstates.com

Great post. I support the tool the Framers gave us in Article V of the Constitution to restore limited government...because they had enough foresight to know this day would come. Learn more and sign the petition at www.conventionofstates.com

leave a reply


login to reply to thread

Sign Up
Forgot Password