Quantcast

Categorized | News

I Have Mixed Feelings About the COS Rally on January 28 at the Bell Tower

My position on the Convention of States has been clear:  it’s dangerous and could lead to chaos, secession or worse:  A “New” globalist constitution with all the “rights” that the UN will allow us to have – precious little.  Remember what the original UN human rights document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says at articles 14, 29 and 30 (emphasis added):

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

***

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

No thanks, I’ll keep the Constitution we have.  And I say this with all due respect to Michael Farris, Esq. (I voted for him for Lieutenant Governor!) and the former Congressman and Senator from Oklahoma and still hero of mine, Tom Coburn.  Coburn will be at our Bell Tower on the Capitol Square next Thursday (assuming we do not have another giant snow storm! 🙂  ) on January 28 at 10 am.  I want to go and try to meet him (he wrote this book that ought to be a manifesto for anyone running for Congress and I would try to find it and get him to sign it next Thursday.) at that time!

But I have this huge integrity problem (what little integrity I have left!) – I am utterly opposed to the Convention of States.  I cannot pretend to say yea to what Senator Coburn is doing by meeting him and still oppose the Convention of States.  I want to bring my own sign there and maybe have a few friends who agree with me that we can best restore the Republic by electing good men and women to state and national office who will respect the Constitution we have now!

Anyone with me?  My idea for a sign would be:

THE COS COULD LEAD TO SECESSION and A NEW GLOBAL CONSTITUTION!!!

Remember, it was done before:  In 1787.  A secret cabal exceeded their authority and foisted a new governing document on the people.  Thank the Lord Jesus the men who went to this first Convention of States loved liberty and their nation first!  It cannot be said for that today.

Can comment here at the blog if you will be there.  Can someone make my sign for me?  Bring it to me at ten AM Thursday?  I might have to miss meeting Senator Coburn after all…but people have sacrificed far more than that for the Constitution of the United States.

About Elwood Sanders

Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)

32 Responses to “I Have Mixed Feelings About the COS Rally on January 28 at the Bell Tower”

  1. David Dietrich says:

    Dear Mr Sanders,

    My position on the Convention of States has been clear: it\’s safe and could lead to order, unity, or better: an \”Old\” Constitution with all the rights identified in the Declaration and Bill of Rights – a whole lot. Remember what one of the Founding Father said when asked about the outcome of the Constitutional Convention, \”a Republic, if you can keep it.\”

    Yes please, I\’ll keep the Constitutional Republic. And I say this with all due respect to Michael Farris and Tom Coburn. I plan to be at the Bell Tower on 28 January to support the team fighting for Virginia\’s role in this historic movement. In any case, we don\’t need to be talking about manifestos with respect to our Constitution. Let\’s leave that discussion to the Marxists.

    But I have this huge integrity problem – I am wholeheartedly supportive of the Convention of States. I can sincerely say, \”yea,\” to what Senator Coburn is doing by meeting him and still support the Convention of States. I want to bring my own sign there and maybe have a few friends who agree with me that, while electing good men and women is essential, it is simply not working. So, we need to honor the entire Constitution by invoking Article V.

    Anyone with me? Mt idea for a sign would be:

    The COS Could Lead to a Restored Constitutional Republic!!!

    Remember, we had a Constitutional Convention in 1787. While the proceedings may have been held in secret, they produced a masterpiece. And in this case, a Convention for amending the Constitution can present to the states a similar product. Just as appointed delegates then upheld their remit, those assigned to a COS will do the same. Thank the Lord Jesus that no one thought our Constitution was illegitimate. The same cannot be said for that today.

    I look forward to your comments here at the blog. Let\’s show the world that we support the entire Constitution of the United States!

    Sincerely,

    David Dietrich

    • Robert Brown says:

      David,
      You need to read original source documents for yourself, rather than having COS feed you talking points.

      10 states, Congress, and the existing constitution FAILED at restraining the power of the 1787 convention.

      Read Madison’s notes. Read the Federalist Papers. Read the commissions from the states to their delegates. No honest person can read and understand the true history they contain and still claim the delegates did not exceed their “commission”.

      • David Dietrich says:

        Robert,

        You need to read original source documents yourself, rather that having George Soros feed you talking points. For example, here is the key authority given to Virginia’s delegates to the Convention by act of the General Assembly on 16 October 1786:

        “…to assemble in Convention at Philadelphia as above recommended and to join with them in devising and discussing all such Alterations and farther Provisions as may be necessary to render the Foederal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of the Union and in reporting such an Act for that purpose to the United States in Congress…”

        So you see, Robert, it is you who needs to read and understand original source documents and realize that the Constitution is not illegitimate as you believe, but rather the result of legitimate authority.

        10 states, Congress, and the existing constitution succeeded in restraining the power of the 1787 convention.

        Read “Credentials of the Delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787,” taken from 3 Farrand’s Records 559–586. I also suggest that you read Madison’s notes and the Federalist Papers. No honest person can read and understand the true history they contain and still claim that our Constitution is illegitimate. Otherwise, what or who do you represent?

        Sincerely,

        David Dietrich

  2. Elwood,

    Sorry to hear of your “huge integrity problem.” I can see one other possible cause: engaging in scare tactics, such as suggesting that a COS “COULD LEAD TO SECESSION and A NEW GLOBAL CONSTITUTION!!!” I guess there’s a first for everything and you’re the first to suggest that one.

    A COS could also lead to measured and logical reductions in the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, it might also lead to the implementation of fiscal restraints on the federal government, it might also result in the imposition of term limits on federal judges. It might even save us from secession!!!

    “No thanks, I’ll keep the Constitution we have.” Do you mean the one that the Supreme Court has rendered limitless, the one which no longer knows the concept of enumerated powers? That one?

    As for 1787, your “secret cabal” clearly did not exceed their authority. Have you read the instructions carried by the not-so-secret delegates to the Philadelphia. They are readily available. After you have read them (you will, won’t you?), I’d like your opinion as to which delegates exceeded their authority and on what you base that opinion.

    How did men who “loved liberty and their nation” manage to “foist[] a new governing document on the people?” Could you elaborate please? Be careful you don’t foist yourself on your own petard in the process.

    Gary
    Gary Porter recently posted…The Constitution’s Week in Review – 23 Jan 16My Profile

    • Robert Brown says:

      I’ve read the instructions to the delegates of the 1787 convention. Have you?

      9 states have very specific limits to the power of their delegates. Those limits were ignored.

      • What does “to assemble in Convention at Philadelphia as above recommended and to join with them in devising and discussing all such Alterations and farther Provisions as may be necessary to render the Foederal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of the Union and in reporting such an Act for that purpose to the United States in Congress” mean to you?

        These were Virginia’s instructions to its delegates. Six more states used nearly identical wording.

        Even after their instructions to “revise” the Articles, not issued until Feb 1787, Congress included the “render the Foederal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of the Union” language as well.

        These instructions are quite expansive and certainly alllowed creation and proposal of a new COnstitution. It wasn’t “foisted” on anyone.
        Gary Porter recently posted…The Constitution’s Week in Review – 23 Jan 16My Profile

        • Raven6 says:

          Gary, verbal mis-messaging is a subtle technique. For clear forensic historical understanding: go to Publius Huldahs Blog, and look the subject up. In Madison’s words, you will find the true answer.

          The Tenth Amendment is the vehicle the Founders expected an educated electorate to use.
          Since Dewy, Cohen and some others pillaged the educational stream in this great country, education on this subject has deminished.

          Raven6

          • David Dietrich says:

            Mr Six,

            Misunderstanding the English language is a subtle technique. While you employ a shadowy individual for your frame of reference, I simply rely on the Constitution itself. In the words of John 8:32, “Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

            Amendment X is a powerful weapon to be wielded by the states and people. Since you have determined that neither group is capable of defining its destiny, then we are simply lost. Let’s all just sing “The Internationale” together. I’d rather attempt to emulate the Founding Fathers, thank you.

            Sincerely,

            David Dietrich

          • I asked a question in my last post. Is anyone going to answer it? I don’t care what Publius Huldah thinks about the delegates instructions I want to know what you think the limits of their authority were.

            These are also Madison’s words: “Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Govt. & rights of the States agst. usurpations & abuses on the part of the U. S. the final resort within the purview of the Constn. lies in an amendment of the Constn. according to a process applicable by the States.” Letter to Edward Everett, 1830
            Gary Porter recently posted…The Constitution’s Week in Review – 23 Jan 16My Profile

        • Raven6 says:

          Gary— This is the answer to your question. Your comment is missing some of what MAdison said on the subject, that is first and foremost. Second, those needed other statements by Madison are at Publius Huldahs Blog, if you take the time to read. Madsion saw what haapened the first time ( ignoring authority ) and shuddered to think ( his words ) of another one.

          Do what you wish, while ignoring what you might not want to read is another. In the case of Madison, it is not her opinion.

          Raven6

  3. Sorry, that’s “be careful you don’t ‘hoist’ yourself on your own petard.”
    Gary Porter recently posted…The Constitution’s Week in Review – 23 Jan 16My Profile

  4. Michael Smart says:

    It’s not 1787, the electorate is a totally “different animal” at this point. They think the Constitution is a living, breathing document that can and should be updated to reflect modern sensibilities. There is nothing that would indicate your state legislatures are pining for a return to Constitutionally limited government.They are enablers if anything. For several generations the electorate have been systematically educated/ “trained up”, to believe such things. They vote and act accordingly. To think for a moment that an “Article V Convention” would not be hijacked and/ or manipulated by the media and special interests is naive at best.To restore the Republic we need to think strategically and long term. We’ll get our freedom back the same way we lost it. We need a reverse, double time, educational “long march through the institutions”. That is the solution.

    • David Dietrich says:

      Mr Smart,

      You’re right, it is not. So which action(s) associated with our “living, breathing” Constitution should we take today? Have you seen the “Constitution Annotated”? Look it up. It’s on the Congressional website. That’s the progressive Constitution in force now. Is that what you prefer?

      What do you “pine” for, Mr Smart? What is your unconstitutional method, mode, means, of a solution to our situation today? I, on the other hand, am merely supporting a very constitutional course. Why do you oppose the Constitution?

      To think for a moment that our current political body is not being hijacked and/or manipulated by the media and special interest groups is naive at best. To restore the Republic, we need to think strategically and long term. That is why the key can be found in the very document we defend.

      We also must exhaust all other remedies at the same time. As for a “long march,” I don’t employ communist symbolism in my endeavors. Instead, we need to once again treat our Republic like a Republic. That’s why the states are essential to our ultimate success. That is the solution.

      Sincerely,

      David Dietrich

      • Michael Smart says:

        David, you sadly and obviously didn’t understand my post. Do you understand how the revolutionary left operates? How they have systematically, over an extended period of time, created what surrounds us. They have used Proverbs 22:6, “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it” to their advantage. This is basically what “the long march” boils down to. It’s not a Communist strategy, it’s how you build the type of society you desire. We must use that same Biblical strategy to save our Republic and it won’t happen overnight. There’s nothing “unconstitutional” about that is there;)?

        • Raven6 says:

          Excellent reply to David. Thank you. Raven6

        • David Dietrich says:

          Michael,

          You sadly and obviously didn’t understand my post. Do you understand how the revolutionary right operates? Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? How they have failed to live up to Jefferson’s admonition, “…a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”

          It appears now that you are not even aware of the real Constitution, “Constitution Annotated,” progressively developed and enforced by the Federal Government. The Founders followed Matthew 10:34, that Jesus “did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” That is what righteous action is about. It’s about how you retain the type of society you desire. We must use that same biblical strategy to save our Republic and it could happen overnight. Unlike your opposition to parts of the Constitution, there’s nothing “unconstitutional” about the Founders’ method, is there?

          Sincerely,

          David Dietrich

          • Michael Smart says:

            That “revolutionary right” needs to be built in terms of numbers and influence. That doesn’t happen overnight. Hence, all that barroom bravado is amusing but alas David I think you possess the wisdom and insight of a Custer or a Fetterman, and could be subjecting our Republic to a similar and final fate.

          • David Dietrich says:

            Mr Smart,

            The “revolutionary right” is being built in terms of numbers and influence. It’s just that you are part of neither those numbers nor influence.

            You’re correct, it doesn’t happen overnight. But, while you seem to be satisfied with some indeterminate amount of time – decades or even centuries, I am not.

            The forces of darkness continue marching. They are making their mark every day we delay our counterstroke.

            Hence, all that shrinking violet stuff is amusing, but alas, Smarty Pants, I think you possess the wisdom and insight of a Graziani or a Petain, and could be subjecting our Republic to a similar final fate.

            Sincerely,

            David Dietrich

          • Michael Smart says:

            Hahahaha! Comedy gold! You’re well meaning I assume, but utterly clueless and totally incapable communicating with people who love their country as you do but disagree on the solution! If you dont have one already, you are a perfect fit for a COS leadership position! They must have a template. Submit your resume and have them call me if you need a reference:)

          • David Dietrich says:

            Mr Smarty Pants,

            Groan! Depression silver! You’re sick meaning, I assume, but utterly pathetic and totally incapable of communicating with people who love their country as you do, but have constitutional solutions to our problems!

            If you don’t have one already, you’re a perfect fit for an Open Society leadership position: they must have a template. Submit your resume and have them call me if you need a reference. Sad face.

            Sincerely,

            David Dietrich

  5. Tom Feigum says:

    A COS is a very poor idea, particularly when you look who is in charge in Washinton, the whole crowd would think nothing of gutting our consitution and at this point they have the numbers so they could do it. I don\’t know how but I am not one of those lawyers.

    • David Dietrich says:

      Mr Felgrum,

      A COS is a wonderful idea, particularly when you look at who is in charge in Washington. That’s the whole point! The whole Washington crowd would like nothing better than gutting our Constitution, and they already are with the “Constitution Annotated” – the progressive one in force today. At this point, they have the numbers and are doing it. That’s why the Constitution gives us a means of opposing them. I know because I am not one of those lawyers.

      Sincerely,

      David Dietrich

  6. Raven6 says:

    These discussions should start with a fact. That being there is nothing wrong with the Constitution & Bill of Rights. Since that is the case, what is wrong? Well/ corruption. Simple. There is no quick manner of \”Fixing\” the Constitution– that is a myth for the shallow, nor is it necessary.
    See what is needed, in this very succinct, and fact filled slide set. You will gain clear facts, and will be able to utilize them.
    See: http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/41085340

    As well, there are several other malevolent spoons in the soup.
    Vet your political candidates to the Constitution, not the party you subscribe to.
    The Constitution, the greatest documents for governing on the planet, should not be treated like needing a flu shot — get a grip.
    Raven6

    • David Dietrich says:

      Mr Six,

      “These discussions should start with fact. That being there is nothing wrong with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.” What about the other seventeen Amendments? What about the “Commerce” clause or “Necessary and Proper” clause?

      Have you seen the Constitution Annotated? You will find that those have become monsters of their own through the progressive Supreme Court “opinion” process.

      How will you reverse such action? Since you consider yourself “deep,” what is your “long-term fix” for this problem?

      Your slide show is merely a chimera for the weak-minded. You don’t know the different between a “Convention…for revising the Constitution” and a Convention for proposing Amendments.

      As for your dirty “spoons,” how will you “vet” them? Have you recruited enough electorate to get your “man” into office?

      The United States Constitution, the greatest governing document in the history of the world, should be treated with the respect it deserves. Don’t ignore parts of it you don’t like. Get a grip!

      Sincerely,

      David Dietrich

  7. Rivahmitch says:

    Well said, Michael, Tom and Raven6.

    As with many of our laws, the current “problems” with the Constitution result not from any major flaws in that document (though the 16th and 17th Amendments, which removed from states their rightful representation and ability to protect the interests of their citizens in the Federal legislative process, could certainly be considered such) but from the refusal of those in Washington to adhere to it’s requirements and support and defend it’s principles. 

    Jefferson warned “”Our peculiar security is in possession of a WRITTEN Constitution…let us NOT make it a BLANK PAPER by construction!” This is, in fact what has happened. There is no reason to believe that the continued pursuit of increased power by the lawyers, courts, bureaucrats and politicians empowered by and involved in the federal establishment would be curtailed by new restrictions when they refuse to adhere to those in the current document. 

    At a time when distrust of government at all levels is at it’s greatest point since the 1860s, assembling groups of lawyers and government officials, already distrusted by most people and always seeking more power, to establish the rules under which they will meet to change the fundamental laws under which they operate to control our lives is hardly conducive to reducing that distrust.
     
    The Constitution, for which many of us have fought, should be enforced and defended, not changed.

    • David Dietrich says:

      Mr Rivah,

      Whether flawed or misused, the impact is the same. Although you complain about Amendments XVI and XVII, you offer no means of reversing them. Which other parts do you not like and would prefer to ignore? Do I hear half of Article V?

      You claim that our Constitution has become a “BLANK PAPER by construction.” Really?!! If that’s the case, then why do you oppose its application so strongly? Your “lawyers, courts, bureaucrats, and politicians” run everything anyway, so why does it matter to you?

      You, like so many other semi-constitutionalists, seem to have a death wish. On the one hand, you consider the Constitution to be illegitimate, while on the other, you refuse to apply it where it is most needed. Which is it, the “supreme Law of the Land,” or some dusty old document?

      The entire original Constitution, for which many of us have fought, should be enforced and defended. And it should be changed as required by the People using the means provided in its words. Or should we simply ignore those existing 27 “changes”?

      Sincerely,

      David Dietrich

  8. Raven6 says:

    Dear David– From your many posts on this site, one could discern an attitude of arrogance. In order to assist your angry posting habits, take two of the following and call me in the morning: First, go to Publius Huldahs Blog and gain an education. Then proceed to what the founders expected of an educated electorate, the “Tenth Amendment Center”.
    In both cases you will see the education you seem to lack, and the method the Founders though so simple. You will se the states in action at the “tenth Amendment Center” and it is for all to see the states have a responsibility to ignore Federal overreach.

    Possibly anger management classes would assist you.

    In any case what is not necessary is still not necessary.

    Sincerely
    6

    • David Dietrich says:

      Dear Six,

      From your several posts on this site, one could discern an attitude of ignorance. In order to assist your lousy posting habits, take two of the following and call me in the morning: 1) Read the Constitution and gain an education, 2) Proceed to what the Founders expected of an educated electorate, the Convention of States Project.

      In both cases, you may possibly see the education you sorely lack, and the method the Founders thought so simple. You will see the states in action at the Convention of States Project, and it is for all to see the states have a responsibility to respond constitutionally to Federal overreach.

      Possibly Alcoholics Anonymous classes would assist you.

      In any case, what is necessary is still necessary.

      Sincerely,

      David Dietrich

      PS I see your attraction to shadowy figures, as you hide your true identity, too.

  9. Yvonne Harmon says:

    The Communists led by George Soros want a COS- that’s all you need to know.
    You won’t recognize your 2nd Amendment Rights if this “insanity” comes to fruition.

    • David Dietrich says:

      Dear Ms Harmon,

      The Communists led by George Soros want our current Progressive Constitution – that’s all you need to know. You won’t recognize your Amendment II Rights if this “insanity” comes to fruition.

      Sincerely,

      David Dietrich

      • Rivahmitch says:

        Now, that, David, is an outright lie. Soros and it’s various shell (fascist and communist) organizations have pushed for a Con Con for at least a decade. It’s that desire for authoritarian/totalitarian control by the self-identified “elite” which is his driver. The Communists and the UN one-worlders have been out to bring down our Constitution for decades because it places the ownership of rights and freedom in the hands of individuals rather than groups, tribes or “society”.

        As I said above, the Constitution is NOT the problem. It’s the same arrogant scum who ignore the content and intent of the current document who will equally ignore any successor document which doesn’t lead to their own totalitarian control. Our founders were not so stupid as to sign a “living document” which the government and its minions could repeatedly reinterpret. Only today’s dumbed-down citizenry would buy that concept.

        As to the unalienable rights supposedly “secured” by the 2nd Amendment, which is the ultimate guarantor of all the others, history teaches that people will have only those rights, liberties and freedoms for which they are willing to kill and die. Personally, I’m as willing as ever, though admittedly less able than I was in ‘Nam. Are you? Semper Fi!!

        • David Dietrich says:

          Mr Mitch,

          There, there, now. Just because you don’t know what you’re talking about, you don’t have to take it out on me. You need to learn about the Fabians and how they have been changing the world for at least a hundred years. You also need to take a look at the Progressive Constitution we have in play today – Constitution Annotated. It’s a far cry from the one you may carry in your pocket.

          And while you may have discovered movements pushing for a Constitutional Convention, you apparently don’t know the difference between that and a Convention for proposing Amendments. It’s that desire for authoritarian/totalitarian control by the self-identified “elite” that our Founding Fathers warned us about.

          I agree with you, that “the Communists and the UN one-worlders have been out to bring down our Constitution for decades because it places the ownership of rights and freedom in the hands of individuals rather than groups, tribes or “society”. Unfortunately, misguided “Conservatives” are their maidservants.

          As I said above, the Constitution IS the problem. It’s the same ignorant fools who don’t understand the progressive nature of our Supreme Court who will refuse to fight for what is right. Your not even on the same playing field as them if you don’t understand this. If you accept the status quo while at the same time raise your pocket guide over your head crying, “foul,” then you have nothing to contribute.

          “As to the unalienable rights supposedly ‘secured’ by the 2nd Amendment, which is the ultimate guarantor of all the others, history teaches that people will have only those rights, liberties and freedoms for which they are willing to kill and die.” I agree. However, when you say you are “as willing as ever,” but at the same time oppose constitutional remedies, you appear only willing to take half measures. I, on the other hand, embrace the ENTIRE Declaration and Constitution.

          Sincerely,

          David Dietrich

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


    Leave a Reply

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

    CommentLuv badge

    Tom White Says:

    Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

    Check out NewsMax!

    Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

    No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
    * = required field

    Submit a Blog Post!

    Submit a Blog Post for our 'Boots on the Ground' feature

    Click Here for Instructions on How to Submit a Post

    Google Ad

    Google Ad

    Follow Us Anywhere!

    Google Ad

    Archives

    Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
    %d bloggers like this: