Connect with us

Everything

Convention of States: fear versus fact

Published

on

Numerous American citizens who were once engaged in politics have walked away because they believe the federal government is broken beyond repair. This assumption is correct, and yet they ignore the fact that our own Constitution offers a way to rein in tyrannical leaders. The Convention of States project is attempting to eliminate the fear that stops people from embracing this tool.

A Gift From the Founding Fathers

It is always sad when solutions are readily available, but not embraced because of fear or ignorance. The reality is, we have access to a solution designed by a group of extraordinarily intelligent men–otherwise known as the Founding Fathers:

Article V can be used to stop the abuse of federal power, but unfortunately, it is gathering dust in a corner as the Framers turn in their graves because of that arch enemy of every great and noble person or cause–fear. Recently, I had the pleasure of an interview with  Constitutional expert, Bob Menges, who has tirelessly taken up this campaign.

The Stranglehold of Fear

Fear leads to bad decisions. We the People have recourse against an overreaching federal government that is top heavy, out of control, oppressive, intoxicated with its own power and no longer operating within the guidelines of the Constitution. Yet the recourse–which is calling a Convention of States–COS–is ignored and indeed when it is mentioned, certain individuals immediately put their fingers in their mouths and begin trembling in fear.

Imagine if our Founding Fathers acted in a similar fashion when it came time to sign that document of treason called the Declaration of Independence?

Article V of the United States Constitution

To understand the viewpoint of both fear of the unknown and faith in our Founders, we must first understand Article V of the United States Constitution, which details the process through which the Constitution may be amended.

To do so, an amendment must be proposed, and subsequently ratified. Amendments may be adopted and forwarded to the states for ratification by either a national convention or a supermajority vote in Congress. With the former, a minimum of 34 states legislatures–two thirds of the states–must request the convention for a specific topic.

With the latter, both chambers of Congress must agree through a supermajority vote–two thirds in each chamber–to propose an amendment. When either of these two actions are taken, the amendment must then be ratified by three fourths–38–of the states to become a permanent part of the United States Constitution.

To date there have been 33 amendments to the Constitution sent to the states and 27 were ratified. The first 10 make up the Bill of Rights. Congress initiated all 33 amendments. We the People have thus far neglected to use this powerful tool.

Difficult by Design

Amending the Constitution via the United States Congress or a Convention of States is difficult by design. The Founding Fathers knew that if it were easy, it may be used one day for the wrong motive.

With the COS process, 34 states must apply for the United States Congress to call an amending convention. All 34 must apply under the same subject matter, which means in simplified terms that there must be a specific focus for the Convention, not a jumble of different proposals from each state–something feared by those who have never listened with an open mind to the process.

Once 34 states have applied, Congress must call the Convention.  The power to refuse was taken out of their hands. (see http://towardsarenewedmind.blogspot.com/2014/09/madisons-final-resort-for-states.html)

Any proposed amendments resulting from the COS must be sent to each state for ratification. It takes 38 states to ratify any proposed amendment before it can become part of the Constitution, and only 13 states to stop a proposed amendment from being ratified.

Two Arguments–One Based on Fact, One Based on Fear

When the fearful are asked to explain their viewpoint, their answers are anemic. They revert to shrieking about a “runaway convention,” the latter of which is a term used to describe a COS that essentially runs out of control and proposes amendments that have nothing to do with the subject matter for which it was called.

However, when asked for facts, the fearful are at an utter loss. They completely ignore the many firewalls built into Article V to prevent a runaway convention, the latter of which is an occurrence that has been called “just north of impossible” by numerous Constitution experts. One such firewall is subject matter limitations.

Fear: The COS will end up being a free-for-all on a variety of subjects that have nothing to do with why it was called.

Fact: The argument that Article V leaves the Convention process open to anything is right up there with fear of the Boogieman. More than 400 applications for a convention have been submitted throughout America’s history and a COS has never been called. This is because the subject matter was never agreed upon. If the firewall of subject matter limitations was irrelevant, multiple conventions would have been called by now.

The Biggest Historical Lie Ever Perpetrated on the American Public:

Fear:  A runaway convention occurred in 1787–and therefore could happen again.

Fact: 1787 was not a runaway convention.

The idea that the 1787 Philadelphia Convention was called merely for the purpose of making minor amendments–and then subsequently ran out of control–is simply not true. This is proven beyond a doubt by Madison’s statements in a document called the Federalist 40.

In Philadelphia in 1787, the charge given to the Convention by Madison was “In the opinion of Congress it is expedient, that on the second Monday of May next a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.”

What this last part means in modern English is that because the Union was in a state of emergency and coming apart at the seams, Madison told attendees of the convention to do whatever necessary to render it once again adequate. For this reason, they were obviously not commissioned to merely make “minor changes,” as many have been lead to believe. The Convention of 1787 had an extraordinarily broad mandate from Congress. (Read Madison’s charge in the Federalist 40 to forever settle this debate.)

Fear: Rogue groups may call a COS to propose outlandish amendments that would be harmful to the country.

Fact:  Another firewall in Articles V is that 38 states must ratify any proposed amendment. Fear mongers must ask themselves what are the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment? But let’s go back into the dark and fearful world of “what if” for just a moment. What if it did happen?”

Fact: It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment. Therefore, as an example, if 38 states lost their collective mind and voted to impose Sharia law nationwide or something equally as absurd, it would only take 13 states to shut it down. Do you think at least 13 states would protest Sharia law? Here, we have yet another firewall against a runaway convention.

Additionally, if this process could be used effectively for an evil purpose, we have to admit our out-of-control government would have used it to that end by now. Remember, Congress can propose amendments too, so why haven’t they proposed to confiscate the firearms they have unsuccessfully attempted to grab through gun control legislation? Because they know 38 states would not ratify a rogue amendment such as that and if they know it, so should we. Let’s not be exposed for being less intelligent than the Congress most of us despise.

The positive aspects of calling for a Convention of States are backed by sound, solid facts. Where are the facts of those who choose instead to live in fear? (Other than the non-existent runaway convention in 1787.)

Real Runaway Government Bigger Threat Than Imagined Runaway Convention

Article V is a gift to American citizens from our Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, many prefer to do the same old thing: elect the “right” people and then complain when nothing changes.

Fearing the “risk” associated with a Convention of States, which is microscopic at best, but not being afraid of America’s march toward a dictatorship is nothing more than super sized reverse order. Which option should we believe carries the greater risk: the almost impossible scenario of a runaway COS or our CURRENT out of control federal government?

If a building was being consumed by flames and people had a fire extinguisher, would there be any justification to just watch the building burn? Well, if we give our fears a vitamin, we can come up with all kinds of reasons. For instance, there’s a chance that some of the water might…uh…get somebody really wet. The fire extinguisher might malfunction and cut the person’s finger off. There may even be some strange element in the water we didn’t know about that will make the fire worse. Besides all that, what if it just LOOKS like a fire extinguisher and really it’s a bomb?

We better just let the building burn to the ground.

For more information visit http://www.conventionofstates.com/

Jesse Broadt has been a full-time writer in the travel industry since 2007 and regularly contributes to news and political websites.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
8 Comments

8 Comments

  1. Marcia

    August 2, 2017 at 11:35 pm

    Very important issue, Jesse! You made some excellent points and, yes, I do know real conservatives that are scared to death of a COS. I do understand their points somewhat, which seem to be- they do not trust the progressive socialist left because they seem to be above the law and Constitution. They ignore rule of law, make up their own laws thru executive actions and are scott free to commit criminal or treasonous acts with no consequence, but you or I would rot in prison. The sadder part that the frightened conservatives realize, is that the left know they can do what they want because the jelly spine “conservative” congress do nothing and barely even acknowledge the double standard much less insist on justice for the heinous crimes. The whole point, as you explained, is that the Constitution has already been shredded, how can it be any worse? Certainly not by using the one “gift” we were left to try to save it..

    • Jesse Broadt

      August 3, 2017 at 12:44 pm

      The point that goes over the fearmongers heads is that if a runaway convention could truly happen–and if they don’t understand why it can’t from this article I GIVE UP–the liberal congress would have called one long ago to take away gun rights, free speech, etc. They haven’t done it because they know it wouldn’t succeed, yet the supposedly “smart” conservatives, who claim they are oh so much smarter than congress, insist that it could happen and toss this valuable tool into the garbage can. Sad. They don’t understand that fear leads to bad decisions, while faith leads to wise decisions. However, it is mainly old-timers who are afraid, and they are ineffectual overall when it comes to politics…look what they just did, after all. Why is Trump in the WH? Because people were afraid of Hillary. Bad decision based on fear. Afraid to vote 3rd party so they submit themselves to the selling of their souls and take the lesser of two evils WHICH IS STILL EVIL. That’s what fear does. Oh well, let the fearful be fearful still. LOL. Let the skeptics weep and howl while we proceed to a convention.

  2. July Harris

    August 3, 2017 at 11:37 am

    One of the best ever on this

  3. Jesse Broadt

    August 3, 2017 at 5:56 pm

    Thank you, July!

  4. Angelina (@ResistTheNazi)

    August 4, 2017 at 12:53 pm

    This was the first time I actually read something that didn’t just defend a COS, but explained WHY the fears of those who oppose it are groundless. ROCK on!

  5. Danny Lamar (@4liberty7777)

    August 7, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    I was very happy to see this great explanation of the COS. But ALSO the dismantling of the arguments against it! People like to talk about it, but no one ever takes on explaining why the “fearmongers” as you put it, are wrong. Great job!

  6. Jesse Broadt

    August 7, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    Thank you, Angelina and Danny. That is exactly what I was going for with this one! Glad I hit the mark!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

Forget lowering unemployment, Bernie Sanders will eliminate it!

Published

on

During his 2016 Democrat primary campaign, Bernie Sanders was “absolutely sympathetic” to the idea of a universal basic income; however, he felt that his plans for a $15/hr. minimum wage, expanding Social Security to pay for guaranteed healthcare, and providing free college would do more than creating just another government handout.

But now Bernie has apparently found a way to accomplish his goals as well as the goals of the universal basic income crowd.
Yesterday, we learned that the self-proclaimed Democratic-Socialist is ready to announce a plan that will guarantee every American “who wants or needs one” a lifetime government job paying at least $15/hr. and proving paid family and medical leave plus retirement, health, and vacation benefits.

While the details are still being worked on, Bernie has admitted that he currently has no idea exactly how much his plan will cost or where the money to pay for it will come from. However, if his 2016 campaign is any indication, the cost will be irrelevant, and the money to pay for it will come from “the billionaires and oligarchs” he refers to as the “top one percent of income earners.”

While it would be tempting to shrug off Bernie’s plan as the rantings of a socialist loon living to the left of the left-wing, we should remember how his Marxist beliefs concerning income inequality caught fire with a generation of Constitutionally ignorant voters raised on the socialist ideology taught in today’s public schools indoctrination centers.

And a poll conducted during the 2016 primary season showed that a majority of millennials rejected capitalism.

Democrats would see a huge voter advantage by creating a new state-run workforce dependent upon them for their jobs. And politicians from both parties would have a new voter-bloc to advance their ideological and political agendas.

Bernie’s plan is being called a guaranteed-jobs program, but the only guarantee it gives us is the destruction of capitalism and Constitutional America.


Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

In UK, Ancient Heathenism Reigns Supreme

Published

on

Several minutes had passed since the medical examination of the newborn had begun. They stood inspective over the infant, occasionally murmuring to one another in a hushed tone.  The babe’s father stood nearby, pacing: his eyes intractably fixed on the small group of elders in a desperate attempt to interpret each subtle lift of an eyebrow or pinch of the lips.

Then came that dreaded nod…

The tormented father wept as the judge read the decision aloud: “as thinking it neither good for the child itself…” the child must die.

The above description is not a reference to the United Kingdom’s government-ordered killing of little Alfie Evans, nor the United Kingdom’s government-ordered killing of little Charlie Gard.

The infant’s death-order, described above, was merely the price of societal perfection for his father, living in the Statist abyss of Ancient Sparta.

In Lives: Lycurgus 16, Greek historian Plutarch (48-122 A.D.) wrote of the medical inspections of infants by “elders,” and of the state-ordered murder of infants in Ancient Sparta under the rule Lycurgus, a tyrannical central-planner:

“Nor was it in the power of the father to dispose of the child as he saw fit (as was his right in most heathen societies). He was obliged to carry (the newborn) child before certain men at a place called Lesche; these men were some of the elders of the tribe to which the child belonged; their business was to carefully view the infant, and, if they found it stout and well made, they gave order for its rearing and allotted to it one of the nine thousand shares of land above mentioned for its maintenance, but, if they found it puny and ill-shaped, ordered it to be taken to what was called the Apothetae (“depository”), a (large cave) under Mt. Taygetus (in the Peloponnese); as thinking it neither for the good of the child itself, nor for the public interest, that it should be brought up, if it did not, from the very outset, appear to be healthy and vigorous.” (emphasis mine)

Undesirable Infants – those either deemed unfit in some way, were conceived through rape, were unwanted, or were female – were often exposed, meaning that these infants were tossed into pits or over cliffs, or were abandoned in the wilderness and then left to starve or to be eaten by wild animals.

Such was life in the pagan purgatories of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.

Such has life begun to be again, today, in the United Kingdom.

As I type, a toddler lies in the hospital, a prisoner, detained by the pagan pride of evil monsters, by his own Statist government.

The “elders” in the UK have sentenced little Alfie Evans to die, “as thinking it neither for the good of the child itself. Alfie may not be alone in the wilderness, but he is being exposed by the sword of starvation.

Right now, a tormented father weeps for his child.

The cruel winds of an evil-ridden history are circling ’round again.

 

Once Christianity came upon the scene, Christians began to regularly rescue exposed infants.

As Tertullian stated, “Christians sought out the tiny bodies of newborn babies from the refuse and dung heaps and raised them as their own or tended to them before they died or gave them a decent burial” (Early Church History).

“The Christian idea that each individual person has worth because they were created by God was foreign to the lies of pagan society where the State, the tribe, the collective was the only value they knew” (Early Church History).

One can even visit these once abandoned babes at the Catacomb of Praetextatus. “The catacombs are filled with very tiny graves with the epitaph ‘adopted daughter of…’ or ‘adopted son of…’ inscribed on them. These inscriptions refer to the many babies and young children Christians rescued from the trash over the centuries” (Early Church History).

Unlike during the times of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, however, today’s United Kingdom prevents Christians from aiding Britain’s exposed children.

Christians from across the globe have offered aid and open arms to little Alfie Evans. Pope Francis has faithfully attempted to save the ailing child, arranging medical transportation for Alfie so that he might fly via air ambulance to the Vatican’s hospital.

Still, the prideful “elders” cling mercilessly to their pagan heathenism, determined to deny any and all Christian charity for little Alfie.

 

Alas! One thing is now crystal clear: in the United Kingdom, ancient heathenism reigns supreme.

For a glimpse of the future, listen to these famous voices from the past:

In On the Laws 3.8, Cicero (106-43 BC) states:

“Deformed infants shall be killed.”

Posidippus, a Greek poet, wrote:

“Everybody raises a son even if he is poor, but exposes a daughter even if he is rich.”

In On Anger 1.15, Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) wrote:

“…mad dogs we knock on the head…unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children at birth who are weakly and abnormal.”

In Politics 7.1335b, Aristotle (364 BC-322 BC) wrote:

“As to exposing or rearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared;  but on the ground of number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practiced on it (the child).”

In Theaetetus, the Greek philosopher Plato (quoting Socrates) wrote of the important societal task of killing infirm infants:

“For we must take care that we don’t overlook some defect in this thing that is entering into life; it may be something not worth bringing up, a wind-egg, a falsehood. What do you say? Is it your opinion that your child ought in any case to be brought up and not exposed to die? Can you bear to see it found fault with and not get into a rage if your first-born is stolen away from you?”

In Ad Nationes, Tertullian (155-220 A.D.) recorded the frequency of pagan infanticide in the Roman Empire during the late 100’s and early 200’s A.D.:

“…because, although you are forbidden by the laws to slay new-born infants, it so happens that no laws are evaded with more impunity or greater safety, with the deliberate knowledge of the public, and the suffrages of this entire age…But then you make away with them in a more cruel manner, because you expose them to the cold and hunger, and to wild beasts, or else you get rid of them by the slower death of drowning.”

In Book 3 of Instructor, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) wrote of Roman women caring more for animals than for children:

“And though maintaining parrots and curlews, they do not receive the orphan child; but they expose children that are born at home, and take up the young of birds, and prefer irrational to rational creatures.”

 

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

New California law voids religious freedom to advance LGBT agenda

Published

on

In the war on American culture waged by the Marxist Rainbow Jihad and LGBT terrorists, there has been perhaps no greater battlefield than the state of California. And as the front where many of the battles are fought, it is also where we find the greatest number of casualties, usually children.

Government authorities working as a type of Gay Mafia have turned public schools into LGBT indoctrination centers where acceptance of deviant lifestyles is mandated by the state in the name of so-called tolerance. In these indoctrination centers, parents are denied the right to teach their kids the values they believe in, and children as young as five-years-old are disciplined as “bullies” for “misgendering” their gender-confused classmates.

Not content with brainwashing young minds, however, LGBT radicals in the CA legislature want to make it a crime for parents, pastors, and professional councilors to engage in “sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.”

Under a banner of so-called consumer protection, the bill (AB-2943) defines “change efforts” as:

“Any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behavior or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

The bill furthers the LGBT agenda in one more way; it codifies LGBT lifestyles as normal and scientific:

“Contemporary science recognizes that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender is part of the natural spectrum of human identity and is not a disease, disorder, or illness.”

With this language added to the bill, freedom of speech and freedom of religion concerning LGBT issues will be essentially eliminated . . . by law!

I once wrote an article about how the LGBT culture war was one more reason for parents to take their kids out of public schools, but now that won’t be enough. This war has grown into a full-fledged assault on religion and traditional moral values.

We can no longer accept the “live and let live” ideology of the left under the mistaken belief that equality is their only goal. It’s time to fight for the souls of our children and the future of America while we still can.


Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.