So my question is this:
- How do we know we can trust the current Reps to uphold the Constitution and guard our rights when they have been just allowing Obama to continue breaking the laws.
- A Con-Con seems to me like suicide at this time in history. How do we know the gun control theater isn’t the push people needed to call for a Con-Con which then leaves the Reps free to make decisions without our input according to the rules of a Con-Con.
- This sounds too dangerous to me. How can we guarantee this doesn’t play right into the Globalist’s hands?
- I think it would be more advantageous to push our Reps to accelerate Obama’s Impeachment.
- I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t trust our current government with something this important because what’s to stop them from just re-writing our constitution, killing the current Amendments, and installing Sharia law?
— This feels like a trap to me…
I get that “We The People” are fed up to our eyeballs with Obama and his complete and utter lawlessness, but is this really the smartest option for the American people right now? At this critical time in the history of America?
Just look how the current Congress acquiesces to Obama’s every whim and executive order. Do you really believe that your representatives are going to be looking out for your best interests given their past track records?
Sure this SOUNDS great in theory but just look at reality, save for a very precious few, those representatives of the people in Washington have sold Americans down the river time and again and will continue to do so “UMPTINE TIMES”!
Pushing For Impeachment, the Better Alternative:
In my humble opinion, I would rather suggest pressuring our elected representatives to accelerate the current proposal to impeach Obama. This at least would remove him from the office and send a CRYSTAL CLEAR message to future Presidential candidates that “We The People” won’t allow this kind of lawless behavior in our country. Rather than hand the reins over to untrustworthy politicians, who only care about themselves, and “hope for the best” in an Article V Convention of the States.
Folks once an Article V Convention is under way we will no longer have ANY say in what changes can or will be made to our constitution. If this gets underway, I fear that America is finished and it will be no one elses fault because it will be “We The People” who gave our Rights and Liberty away.
So I say NO CON-CON! NO ARTICLE V CONVENTIONS! NOT NOW! It is too dangerous to our freedom to ignite an article V Convention at this time in history. There is WAY too much at stake and our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren are the ones who will ultimately pay the price for our lack of foresight…
There are others who are light years smarter than I am and they are saying the same thing:
* * *
Publius Huldah: (Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution.)
Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amending our Constitution. Congress:
1. Proposes amendments, or
2. Calls a convention to propose amendments if 34 States apply for it.
The first method was used for our existing 27 amendments: Congress proposed them and sent them to the States for ratification or rejection.
Under the second method, Congress calls a convention. We have never had a convention under Article V. Such conventions are extremely dangerous. THIS is one of many articles which illustrate the danger, sets forth warnings from two of our Framers and two former US Supreme Court Justices, and explains why Delegates to a convention can NOT be controlled by State laws.
National conventions are dangerous because the Delegates have the plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification. The video by Chuck Michaelis at the bottom of THIS page explains these plenipotentiary powers. Such Delegates are the Sovereign Representatives of The People and have the power to impose a new Constitution. This has already happened in our history:
♦ At the Federal Convention of 1787, this plenipotentiary power was exercised to replace our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, with the Constitution we now have. On February 21, 1787, The Continental Congress called a convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. But instead of proposing amendments to our first Constitution, the Delegates wrote a new Constitution – the one we now have.
♦ Furthermore, the new Constitution had a new and easier mode of ratification: Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (p 8-9) provided that Amendments to the Articles had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States. But the new Constitution, drafted at the “amendments” convention of 1787, provided at Art. VII thereof that it would be ratified upon approval by only nine of the then existing 13 States.
So! Not only do Delegates to a national convention have this plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution; the precedent to do so has already been established.
Statists have been pushing for a convention for 50 years – ever since the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. They need a convention to get it imposed.
Several other Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention.
If there is a convention, the only issues will be (1) whose Constitution will be imposed by the Delegates; and (2) what new mode of ratification will be set forth in the new Constitution.
* * *
I could list many others who are also saying the same thing but that isn’t as important as you getting involved and making your voice heard. Think about it, it’s your future and your country too! If it were up to you would you throw it all away? You don’t have to let the situation go on out of your control, all you need to do to make a change is get involved and make your voice heard. Do it for your children and grandchildren if for no other reason, don’t they at least deserve a fighting chance?