Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
Subscribe to NCRenegade via Email
Carolina Readiness Supply
Websites
NC Renegade on Twitter
NC Renegade on Gab
NC Renegade on Truth Social
Wes Rhinier on Gab
12 Round Blog
Barnhardt
Cold Fury
DanMorgan76
Defensive Training Group
The Deth Guild
The Feral Irishman
First in Freedom Daily
Forloveofgodandcountry's Blog
Free North Carolina
Knuckledraggin My Life Away
Liberty's Torch
90 Miles From Tyranny
Professor Preponomics
Publius-Huldah's Blog
Straight Line Logic
The Tactical Hermit
War on Guns
Western Rifle Shooters Association
Categories
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Philip1350 on Tillis
- BigJymn on Why has the CIA been Hiding the JFK Files for 62 Years?
- strider777 on A Short Lesson on the Truth of Ukraine
- NITZAKHON on A Short Lesson on the Truth of Ukraine
- David Bovender on Follow the Money
Archives
Meta
Congress impeaches -- yes twice in all of history and both failed to convict int he Senate. So, Ms. Huldah needs to find a new way forward -- Maybe like her September paper where she finally admits that we must use Article V to repeal some offending Amendments. Like the Article V Project 28th amendment.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/article-v—group-overview-and-proposal.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-28th-amendment.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/anti-pro-av.html
I have more videos coming from this event but this video has nothing to do with an Article V convention. I checked your links and they do not address the content of this post.
Post the link to Ms. Huldah’s article to which you refer.
Your video is about a method to correct USURPATION . . Congress and the Court will not act then who shall -- the people through their State Legislatures . . the only method to CORRECT provided by the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers inside the four corners of the Constitution.
No works outside the the actual words of the Constitution can modify, change or alter the clear simple language used if one wants to define meaning then look up the word meaning in the time of use. Here is a free Dictionary from 1828 -- web based and free.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-basic-library.html
The only method to correct is to remove power that have been usurped by the three branches of government and the links go to that question.
I have more videos coming from this event but this video has nothing to do with an Article V convention.
For Publius Huldah’s viewpoint on an Article V convention:
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/article-v-convention-how-individuals-of-insidious-views-are-stealing-our-constitution/
Our Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. However the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence enjoy equal standing. Our natural laws are guaranteed by our founding documents. As James Madison (the father of our Constitution) wrote: Nullification is a natural right.
PH is addressing a CONVENTION OF STATES -- THE ARTICLE V PROJECT IS A REPEAL AMENDMENT AND THERE IS NO CONVENTION. The entire process is inside the State Legislatures and then ordering the Congress to send the 28th amendment out to the States for a vote to ratify.
Predetermined Position Regarding the Constitution
I present the facts that are on the ground, all may choose to like them or dislike them. But we all must address reality if they desire to restore the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.
I do not say to disregard history. When using historical example one should include it all in your OPINIONS if you desire to be convincing. For example you must find the ‘historical meaning’ of Natural Born in the time of King George-when discussing what the Founders meant when they were discussing that same definition. Only then, have you completely and honestly presented the history and the truth of your analogy.
It is always interesting when people attack others that have deferring OPINIONS of the Constitution than their own. -- Name-calling usually accompanies a losing argument in an attempt to discredit any challenger. If an OPINION is 100% solid, it should present a real connected -well presented and documented statement -that proves a point of view. Bear in mind, if you are starting from a predetermined position and are blinded to any other result or conclusion, will you arrive at an honest destination, or the one you chose first and then figured out how to arrive there in the first place. Is the truth the honest destination or was it all about the journey?
History is what I encourage you to study. In doing so, please keep inside the four corners of the Constitution. If you have an issue with what the Constitution actually says, I would encourage you to simply go to the dictionaries of the time and find the actual meaning of the words at the point in time when they were written.
There are many sources for meanings of the time. When I do not see any them being used, it signals one thing… this person does not think the FF & R did not state in clear terms what they meant. These persons dance on the heads of history to distort the true meaning of the Constitution as it was written. They are engaged in the practice of interpretation and distortion and stretching and adapting the document to their own opinion or interpretation.
I find also, critics seldom provide solutions to the issues of usurpation and tyranny. While they may complain and complain, they never present a way to restoration. I liken it to the Preacher that keeps defining historical sin but never speaks of how sinners can stop. Progress is earned not defended.
Straw man arguments that were poorly presented by Mrs. Peterson at the debate.
“Maybe like her September paper where she finally admits that we must use Article V to repeal some offending Amendments.”
___
Could you post a link to this? Thanks!
I doubt the article exists that profitup10 references.
I see absolutely nothing in Article 5 that allows the states to determine the subject of any amendment or convention or to circumscribe the authority of said convention in any way shape or form. All I see is that Article 5 says the Congress shall call a convention when a sufficient number of states have applied. Now, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 does provide to Congress, not the states, the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by the Constitution and this provides a path for Congress to determine the cope and purpose of a convention as well as the power to change the rules of ratification if desired.
The Constitution has been amended 27 times to date with nary a convention. When honest, educated and successful legal minds like Phyllis Schlafly and Dr Edwin Vieira Jr. posit that there is nothing concrete in law that can guarantee a convention would be restrained as per the wishes of Mark Levin and Occupy then I do not see the risk reward ration being tilted enough to accept the risk.
I do have doubts about impeaching Obama but not because of the fact that the US Senate is full of scumbags that have fealty to their respective political parties and no loyalty to the law or the people. My issue is that since Obama is not truly eligible and not legally holding the office can we impeach him any more than we can impeach the town drunk that sits on the sidewalk claiming to be POTUS?
I deleted the last two comments from profitup10. I will not tolerate personal attacks and straw man arguments on this site against other people.
profitup10’s comments are dishonest or ignorant.
Art. V provides 2 methods of amending the Constitution:
1. Congress proposes amendments, or
2. Congress calls a convention to propose amendments.
James Madison advised the first method; and that is the method used for all 27 of the existing amendments.
The proper way to get rid of the 17th amendment is to send to Congress people who will pursue the first method -- as I have already said.
Shame on you, profitup10.
Impeachment has been tried twice in 226 years with no conviction so we should forget about it? Sorry but your reason to stop demanding the rule of law, i.e. impeachment, is absurd.
Re: “THE ARTICLE V PROJECT IS A REPEAL AMENDMENT AND THERE IS NO CONVENTION. The entire process is inside the State Legislatures and then ordering the Congress to send the 28th amendment out to the States for a vote to ratify.”
That is a contradiction to your other statement in this thread:
“No works outside the the actual words of the Constitution can modify, change or alter the clear simple language used…”
Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, also as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress…
According to the Constitution; on the application of 2/3 of the state legislatures, CONGRESS shall call a convention for proposing amendments. You say the Article V Project is not calling for a convention. Either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are going outside the “4 corners of the Constitution”. I certainly hope it doesn’t stem from dishonesty.
Since Congress SHALL call the the convention you deny (despite the “clear simple language”), Article I Section 8 last paragraph which defines Congress’ power comes into play:
“To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
To wrap Article V up, it is Congress who will decide if it will be the state legislatures or the conventions who ratifies the amendments, not you or the Article V Project.
I sincerely hope you haven’t swallowed the Article V Project’s malarkey; hook, line, and sinker. Spit that hook out!
~BTG