Don’t Be Deceived



This post by Tara Ross on Facebook, is probably the most crafty deception I’ve seen yet on the whole Con Con thing. Below is my response:

The republican states which were parties to the Constitution are politically unpopulated, there’s no authority to amend the Constitution in any way since Reconstruction. The 14th and on are unconstitutional and there is no authority for a convention precisely because an unconstitutional amendment has reversed everything. The democrat states wherein Federal citizens reside are legal fictions of the 14th Amendment, they aren’t parties to the Constitution anymore than the Federal government is.

This is just arguing that the Federal government can call a convention all by itself vis a vis it’s satellite administrative agency “states” created in the 14th Amendment and fully acknowledges the reversal of the system.

The Founders would have taken up arms against this as they did the King of England, they wouldn’t have changed their reasoning to fully coincide with the perversion of the Constitutional system. On the contrary, Madison would have condemned the whole amendment by the barrell of a gun process and the whole idea that state legislatures could amend the constitution altering the power structures which only a Convention could do which provided the 14th regardless of the military usurpation.

If people want off the gallows, go back down the steps they climbed up to get on it – this demand to wrap the noose around their own neck and pull the lever is stupidity writ large. This is, like a cult, nothing more than a demand to establish a national suicide pact for Federal citizens, it’s advocates are the Jim Jones of the cult. They will kill you by getting you to drink this Kool Aid.

Miss Ross is either ignorant and deceived of the world she lives in or a deceiver, the only reason I can see to call an unlawful convention is to perform more unlawful acts, most probably abolish the original republican structure the democracy overlays now and establish a more pure form of socialism than this hybrid mess.

Don’t be deceived.


Quote of Tara Ross Facebook post on September 10,2014:

“On this day in 1787, the Constitutional Convention was drawing to a close. The delegates turned to the subject of constitutional amendments.

The then-existing draft of the Constitution gave state legislatures the ability to call for a Convention to propose amendments. The U.S. Congress had no similar power.

Alexander Hamilton, delegate from New York, was dissatisfied with the provision. “The State Legislatures,” he stated, “will not apply for alterations but with a view to increase their own powers. The National Legislature will be the first to perceive and will be the most sensible to the necessity of amendments.”

The delegates decided to change the provision. In the final Constitution, the Congress can begin the constitutional amendment process more easily than the states can.

Hamilton’s statement seems a little ridiculous today. Doesn’t the federal government always seem to be the road block to amendments that many Americans want? (e.g., term limits, balanced budget?) But now consider the world in which Hamilton lived. In 1787, the state governments were much more powerful than the federal government. Indeed, the delegates were deliberately creating a Constitution that gave the federal government only limited powers. Our Founders feared a large, powerful, federal government. They wanted their states to retain much of the legislative authority.

Given this situation in 1787, it would have been perfectly logical to think that the powerful states would be the most likely to abuse the amendment power. Today, unfortunately, the situation has reversed itself. The federal government is more likely to abuse its power.

In retrospect, would Hamilton have made it much easier for states to propose amendments?

All is not lost. The Constitution might make it easier for Congress to propose amendments, but the states can still make an amendment happen. The Constitution specifically provides that Congress MUST call “a Convention for proposing Amendments” if “the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States” make application for such a convention.

Some people today worry that such a convention could degenerate into a “runaway convention.” Please remember that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention relied upon conventions much more often than we do, and they would have understood the rules and norms of such conventions. (Today’s generation needs to be reminded!) If such a convention were to be called, state legislatures would be in charge. They could limit the topics under discussion and they could limit delegates’ commissions so that their delegates would have only limited authority.

There are legitimate reasons to fall on either side of the debate about whether we should call an Article V convention. But perhaps the debate would be generally helped if more Americans knew more about the Founders and their use of conventions in the late 1700s.”

“Non sibi sed patriae”
It is time to water the tree of Liberty.
“A Republic can only survive by its Patriots spilling the blood of tyrant predators.
[Bill Bohart]


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here