As to the Nelson article: 1. She states that "by 1986, 32 of the 34 states needed for a new constitutional convention had passed calls for a convention." The public record regarding convention calls submitted to Congress prove this incorrect. By 1986, Congress had received well over 600 applications from all 50 states for an Article V Convention. Further the public record shows that in all 36 states submitted applications related to balanced budget, not the popular but inaccurate 32 of 34 as she states. You can reference the texts of the 750 applications from all 50 states at our website www.foavc.org.
2. In 1920 the Supreme Court ruled in Hawke v Smith that neither the legislatures, state or federal nor the courts, state or federal, can alter the terms of Article V. Article V does not permit rescissions of applications by the states and certainly not after the two-thirds requirement has been met which it was, as the public record shows, by 1911. Therefore her statement regarding states rescissions of applications is inaccurate.
3. The language of Article V itself precludes and disproves her statement that "When the latter (convention) is used, the entire document is taken down and re-examined." Article V limits both Congress and a convention to proposing amendments to our present Constitution and clearly states amendments shall become "part of this Constitution." Therefore your statement is false.
4.Her reference regarding Justice Burger are inaccurate. If you read FAQ 8.6 you will see that the Burger is a phoney. More importantly, the public record shows Mr. Burger favored an Article V Convention and drew a distinction between an Article V Convention authorized by the Constitution and a "constitutional convention" not authorized nor even mentioned within the Constitution. Therefore her statement is false and inaccurate based on the full public record.
5. Her reference to Mr. Madison was, as everyone knows, directed to efforts to hold a second convention in 1787. He fully supported, and is on public record as supporting a convention call. You can reference the applications referred to earlier and read the first application in which he and other members Congress discussed the matter (Annals of Congress, page 259, 261).
6. Judge Napolitano is on public record opposing a convention as is Mr. Beck. Both are therefore constitutional hypocrites in that, like her, she believes in parts of the Constitution being enforced and other parts being vetoed by the government. As to Mr. Barnett, a simple reading of his article showed that he wanted to play a game of chicken for a convention call, an impossible suggestion given the number of applications for a convention. In short, Mr. Barnett wanted simply use a convention call as a political tool rather than actually call a convention as required by Article V. As to the repeal of the 16th Amendment, public record shows 39 states have applied for this issue alone meaning that on this issue alone a convention call is mandated.
7. As to her allegation of a new constitution, Article V prevents it with language referenced above demonstrates. Further the courts, in four separate rulings have never said a convention or Congress for that matter has such authority.It is obvious she fails understand that whatever power you assign a convention also is assumed by Congress. I fail any such concern she expresses for Congress in its proposal power. The court cases are discussed on the FOAVC website in the FAQ section. They clearly state a convention is peremptory meaning Congress must call a convention.
Given all of these errors of fact that can be verified in public record, I strongly suggest in future she check them before writing an article.
If Obama delivers this nation to the global climate change meeting in Copenhagen, we won't have to worry about a Con Con. We won't have a Constitution to worry about.
the Article V Convention is our only hope of the people taking this country back from globalist politicians. the convention clause of article v is part of our constitution for a reason. please re-consider your opinion about this. as to obama, you don't hear him talking about holding a convention. that's because he's a politician for the globalists, and they don't want a convention, because if that happens the people will come together and dismantle their agenda. please reconsider your position on this. it really is our only hope. thank you.
3 comments:
As to the Nelson article:
1. She states that "by 1986, 32 of the 34 states needed for a new constitutional convention had passed calls for a convention." The public record regarding convention calls submitted to Congress prove this incorrect. By 1986, Congress had received well over 600 applications from all 50 states for an Article V Convention. Further the public record shows that in all 36 states submitted applications related to balanced budget, not the popular but inaccurate 32 of 34 as she states. You can reference the texts of the 750 applications from all 50 states at our website www.foavc.org.
2. In 1920 the Supreme Court ruled in Hawke v Smith that neither the legislatures, state or federal nor the courts, state or federal, can alter the terms of Article V. Article V does not permit rescissions of applications by the states and certainly not after the two-thirds requirement has been met which it was, as the public record shows, by 1911. Therefore her statement regarding states rescissions of applications is inaccurate.
3. The language of Article V itself precludes and disproves her statement that "When the latter (convention) is used, the entire document is taken down and re-examined." Article V limits both Congress and a convention to proposing amendments to our present Constitution and clearly states amendments shall become "part of this Constitution." Therefore your statement is false.
4.Her reference regarding Justice Burger are inaccurate. If you read FAQ 8.6 you will see that the Burger is a phoney. More importantly, the public record shows Mr. Burger favored an Article V Convention and drew a distinction between an Article V Convention authorized by the Constitution and a "constitutional convention" not authorized nor even mentioned within the Constitution. Therefore her statement is false and inaccurate based on the full public record.
5. Her reference to Mr. Madison was, as everyone knows, directed to efforts to hold a second convention in 1787. He fully supported, and is on public record as supporting a convention call. You can reference the applications referred to earlier and read the first application in which he and other members Congress discussed the matter (Annals of Congress, page 259, 261).
6. Judge Napolitano is on public record opposing a convention as is Mr. Beck. Both are therefore constitutional hypocrites in that, like her, she believes in parts of the Constitution being enforced and other parts being vetoed by the government. As to Mr. Barnett, a simple reading of his article showed that he wanted to play a game of chicken for a convention call, an impossible suggestion given the number of applications for a convention. In short, Mr. Barnett wanted simply use a convention call as a political tool rather than actually call a convention as required by Article V. As to the repeal of the 16th Amendment, public record shows 39 states have applied for this issue alone meaning that on this issue alone a convention call is mandated.
7. As to her allegation of a new constitution, Article V prevents it with language referenced above demonstrates. Further the courts, in four separate rulings have never said a convention or Congress for that matter has such authority.It is obvious she fails understand that whatever power you assign a convention also is assumed by Congress. I fail any such concern she expresses for Congress in its proposal power. The court cases are discussed on the FOAVC website in the FAQ section. They clearly state a convention is peremptory meaning Congress must call a convention.
Given all of these errors of fact that can be verified in public record, I strongly suggest in future she check them before writing an article.
Thank you, Bill.
If Obama delivers this nation to the global climate change meeting in Copenhagen, we won't have to worry about a Con Con. We won't have a Constitution to worry about.
Please read my blog entries on that nightmare.
the Article V Convention is our only hope of the people taking this country back from globalist politicians. the convention clause of article v is part of our constitution for a reason. please re-consider your opinion about this. as to obama, you don't hear him talking about holding a convention. that's because he's a politician for the globalists, and they don't want a convention, because if that happens the people will come together and dismantle their agenda. please reconsider your position on this. it really is our only hope. thank you.
Post a Comment