Quantcast

Categorized | News

Rigged Convention Bears No Resemblance to Reality

By Sue Long

Recently the Convention of States (COS) held a mock convention in Williamsburg.   It was an attempt to convince the American public and their legislators that this is the way a constitutional convention can be done.  “It served only as an example of mass deception,” said Delegate Bob Marshall. “There is no precedent, and in real life, delegates would be able to do whatever they want per the Declaration of Independence, paragraph two, including alter or abolish our form of government and change the ratification process.”

 

COS handpicked the delegates for their mock convention. “What are the odds that such a delegation would be selected in real life to change our near-perfect founding document?” asked Delegate Marshall.   In addition, COS made up the convention rules and appointed themselves as administrator, secretary, and parliamentarian. The proceedings of the mock convention show  that neither COS, nor the delegates they hand-picked to carry out their scheme, understand that our Constitution clearly states in Article V that the only role the states have is to apply to Congress and it is then Congress that makes the call and determines how the delegates are chosen.

 

COS has been carrying out a well-greased public relations campaign and exerting pressure at the state level to convince state legislators, as illogically as it may seem, that changing the US Constitution is the only way to rein in the out-of-control federal government that refuses to follow the Constitution we have now.

 

COS has claimed success by staging a rigged convention which they bill as a practice run that proves nothing except how millions of dollars can be used to manipulate legislators into voting for a Constitutional Convention and role playing any idea, even one that could throw out our Constitution.

About Tom White

Tom is a US Navy Veteran, owns an Insurance Agency and is currently an IT Manager for a Virginia Distributor. He has been published in American Thinker, currently writes for the Richmond Examiner as well as Virginia Right! Blog. Tom lives in Hanover County, Va and is involved in politics at every level and is a Recovering Republican who has finally had enough of the War on Conservatives in progress with the Leadership of the GOP on a National Level.

35 Responses to “Rigged Convention Bears No Resemblance to Reality”

  1. Gene Lefty says:

    COS is nothing but a corrupt vehicle to let Wall St., special interest, unions, the rich, etc,, rewrite the Constitution to their liking. The electeds would stick up all of them, and sell the constitution to the highest bidder. Washington is mostly run by faux Catholic’s these days and is beyond repair.

    • David Dietrich says:

      Mr Lefty,

      Do you typically make such unsubstantiated claims? Perhaps ignorance is a better term. What do you actually know about COS? If the interests of the American People are “special,” then count me in. What are your “interests”? As for religious affiliation, what are you, Sunni?

      Sincerely,

      David Dietrich

  2. Defend the Constitution, Don't Amend It says:

    When the Communist George Soros is funding support of the Convention of States for the purpose of taking away GUN RIGHTS from law abiding citizens while he funds the Black Lives Matter riots , WHY would Republicans support it? especially in Virginia where Republicans in the House of Delegates voted to support the COS in the 2015 General Assembly.

    Contact your state representatives especially the state senators and tell them NO COS!

    • David Dietrich says:

      Mr Defend,

      I’ll reiterate my comment to Lefty above. What is the point of your ignorant claim regarding George Soros? Do you dine with him and Clinton? Once elected in November, they will work together to ensure our guns are taken by appointment of more unelected officials. Why would Republicans support that?

      We at least have a chance of proceeding in Virginia, as the House of Delegates made the right decision by supporting the US Constitution. Once the Senate steps up to the plate, we will be well on our way to reversing the one-party actions of our federal government.

      Contact your state senators to convince them that a Convention for proposing Amendments is the only way left to return sovereignty to the states.

      Sincerely,

      David Dietrich

      • DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, DON'T AMEND IT says:

        READ THIS:
        http://freedomoutpost.com/emails-prove-that-the-real-leader-of-the-democrat-party-is-george-soros/
        NAZI GEORGE SOROS- IF YOU CAN GOOGLE- FUNDED ALL THE BLM RIOTS IN ALL THE CITIES
        TO DESTROY CAPITALISM IN THIS COUNTRY. IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT IF YOU CAN READ THAT GEORGE SOROS IS A GLOBALIST AND HATES AMERICA AND IS FUNDING THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR REPUBLIC. HE SUPPORTS HILLARY AND THE COMMUNISTS IN THE NEW MARXIST DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF AMERICA.

        The fact that Soros is funding the campaign supporting the COS is exactly the reason Patriots should oppose it. HE IS THE EVIL EMPIRE.

        • David Dietrich says:

          Mr Indefensible,

          Read this:

          http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/05/mark-levin-wows-state-legislators-take-your-power-back/

          Real Americans believe in and fully support the US Constitution. Nazi Americans, if you can google, want to destroy America. It is a well-known fact that real conservatives support the entire Constitution, not just the parts they like.

          The fact that you believe your friend George Soros is allied with the Convention of States Project is exactly the reason real Patriots should support it. Georgie Porgy is the Evil Empire.

          Sincerely,

          David Dietrich

          • rbrown says:

            Real conservatives support defending the Constitution, not subjecting it to misguided amendments. This mock convention did show us that those ignorant of the Constitution will, with the best of intentions, propose amendments that will undermine it.

            One proposed amendment (accidentally?) overrides Article 1, Section 1, legitimizing power that has previously been usurped. Another WEAKENS the power of the states to block unconstitutional federal actions.

            If that is what we get with a hand-picked delegation that is over 95% Republicans, just wait to see what we get when Democrats are added to the mix in larger numbers.

      • Andy Reevis says:

        Everyone in America knows Nazi George Soros funded the BLM riots: except you apparently.
        and he wants the A5 COS.

        http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/george-soros-funded-ferguson-protests/2015/01/15/id/618934/

        • David Dietrich says:

          Mr Reevis,

          “Everyone in America knows Nazi George Soros funded the BLM riots.” Nice non sequitur. In other words, your comment is irrelevant.

          Sincerely,

          David Dietrich

  3. David Dietrich says:

    Sue,

    Thank you for your thoughts on the recent mock Convention for Proposing Amendments. Unfortunately, you have once again regurgitated the same old tired argument against the Constitution. At least you may as well tell your readers that you are merely a semi-constitutionalist, only looking at the US Constitution as a smorgasbord, whereby you pick and choose what you like about it and discard the parts that scare you.

    Speaking of “convincing the American public and their legislators that this is the way” a “Convention for proposing Amendments” (not a “Constitutional Convention” as you so lovingly like to call it) will take place, I refer you to Article V for the exact words, which aren’t the unconstitutional ones you consistently use to argue against the Constitution. Anyone who is not convinced that the Constitution supports itself is not a Conservative.

    It’s too bad about Delegate Bob Marshall. He’s simply delusional. He has failed the test of true conservatism by his anti-constitutional position in this matter. His assessment of the mock Convention is 100% off. It was a superb example of how a Convention for proposing Amendments will be administered. There is great precedent. And since he and you both seem to like unconstitutional proceedings, why don’t you applaud the behavior of our current federal government?

    The odds of handpicking the commissioners to a real Convention for proposing Amendments are excellent, since that is the way it will be done by each state. They will obviously also make up the Convention rules and appoint the administrator, secretary, and parliamentarian, just as our Founding Fathers did. Understand that our Constitution clearly states in Article V that the only role for Congress is to “call the Convention” and it is then the states that will determine how the commissioners will be chosen.

    You and Bob Marshall have been carrying out a greasy public relations campaign and exerting pressure at the state level to convince state legislators, as illogically as it may seem, that the US Constitution is a bad document and should be ignored. You instead want to rely on an out-of-control federal government to solve all our problems. Making the case that our Constitution is just too scary and that people beyond our control should dictate everything we do is plain sad.

    The highly successful mock Convention for proposing Amendments proved that the right people under the right conditions (just like our Founding Fathers proved) can behave brilliantly and demonstrates to the American People that the COS Project is the last best hope for America. As for dollars spent convincing legislators to do the right thing, that’s the way of the world. I can tell you, though, that I’m likely making less that you in pursuit of this goal.

    You may take your “Constitutional Convention” and hand it over to your pals at Global Initiative, for what it’s worth. I, on the other hand, will base my actions on Article V of the US Constitution, which clearly empower the states to apply for and hold a Convention for proposing Amendments. Unlike you, I don’t need to role play the idea that our federal officials will solve our problems by throwing out our Constitution.

    Sincerely,

    David Dietrich

    • Mr. Bogey Man says:

      NAZI?

      Right?

      Dietrich that’s GERMAN RIGHT?

    • Rbrown says:

      I am always amazed how COS promoters continue to trot out their oft-debunked claims, such as “its not a constitutional convention”.

      It is not? Based on what? The the Article V convention clearly fits the definition of the term “constitutional convention” as found in any law dictionary. Most of them even use the Article V convention as an example of such.

      David here has claimed it is not a constitutional convention. David, what dictionary are you using? What is your evidence?

      • David Dietrich says:

        Mr Brown,

        I am always amazed how semi-constitutionalists continue to trot out their always debunked claims, such as, “just elect the right people and we’ll bring the federal government back in line.”

        As for the difference between a “Constitutional Convention” and a “Convention for proposing Amendments,” I refer you to Black’s dictionary. Whereas the former is for writing a new constitution, the latter’s mission is found in its name – amendment proposals. If that’s unclear, then you cannot be helped. You may just as well conflate a Star Trek Convention with a Constitutional Convention. According to you, there is no difference. They’re both conventions.

        R here has claimed it is a constitutional convention. R, what dictionary are you using? What is your evidence?

        Sincerely,

        David Dietrich

        • Rbrown says:

          #1 I have never said the solution is “just elect the right people”. In this context, that is a “straw-man” fallacy.

          #2 I find it interesting that you are referring me to Black’s Law. This is clearly not the dictionary you are using! It defines a constitutional convention as a convention for “framing, revising, OR amending” a constitution. Is the convention you are promoting intended to do any of these? If yes, then it IS a constitutional convention.

          And to add further clarity, Black’s Law continues, “Art.V of U.S. Const. provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states.”

          But thank you for the reference. Actually, I primarily use Black’s Law. And by you referencing it, you’ve proven my point.

          By DEFINITION, an Article V convention is a constitutional convention.

          • David Dietrich says:

            Mr Brown,

            #1 No, you haven’t. But, your fellow semi-constitutionalists have. But, then, you haven’t proposed any real solution, if that even matters to you.

            #2 I find it interesting that you seem to have read the definition in Black’s Dictionary. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to understand English grammer or the difference between “proposing Amendments” to the Constitution and “amending the Constitution.” I’ll lay it out for you again: Article V provides for the former, while Black’s defines the latter.

            #3 And to add further clarity, Black’s Dictionary doesn’t define a “Convention for proposing Amendments.” That’s why it is used by lawyers and law students as their foundation. They are happy to misapply the constitution when it suits their needs.

            But, thank you for the clarification. Actually, I primarily use the US Constitution. And by you not referencing it, you’ve proven my point.

            By DEFINITION, an Article V Convention is NOT a Constitutional Convention.

            Sincerely,

            David Dietrich

          • Rbrown says:

            I have never hear any in the “Constitution preservationist” camp promoting the “just elect the right people” idea, but I have heard many of you “Constitution revisionists” accuse us of it.

            Second, by your interpretation of Black’s Law, even the 1787 convention could not be a constitutional convention, because even that convention only had the power to propose changes. Although they were called for the purpose of “revising the Articles” to “make the Constitution adequate”, they too had a ratification process to consider the convention’s proposals.

            In fact, no convention in our history fits your distorted interpretation, since no convention has been empowered to directly make changes to a constitution. They always are followed by some sort of ratification process. Just because Black’s Law doesn’t stipulate the ratification process to follow doesn’t mean it cannot exist. By your view, there would be no such thing as a constitutional convention, and never has been!

            And to hold this view, you also have to IGNORE the second part of this definition (which you provided), which says “Art. V of U.S. Const. provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on the application of two-thirds of the states.” You have simply ignored this portion of your definition.

            It seems you are now fighting against the definition which you provided. Oh, the irony!

            Then, to add to this irony, you declare, “That’s why it is used by lawyers and law students as their foundation. They are happy to misapply the constitution when it suits their needs.” Is that why you are using it too?

            No, the Black’s Law definition (which you provided) isn’t wrong. What it says is that a constitutional convention is called “for the PURPOSE of framing, revising, or amending”, but it does not say the convention fulfills this entire purpose. It does not rule out the possibility of a ratification process to follow, as the second part of fulfilling this purpose.

  4. lawrence wood says:

    The COS delusion to follow up on Delegate Marshall’s opinion is based on the false premise that it’s supporters can manage a constitutional change event that will (NOT perhaps but WILL) be packed with the same convention delegates that created and assisted the growth of the very constitutional issues and problems that the COS is supposedly going to magically solve in the first place. This is the teenager with a learner’s permit planning on entering as a driver in a Formula One Grand Prix event and expecting some type of successful outcome. There is the “hail Mary” and then there is plain stupid this falls under the latter.

    But I’m willing to be convinced by allowing these naive conservatives and disillusioned libertarians a simple credibility task to demonstrate they are up to the task of controlling a COS. Get a few individuals actually elected to public office and pass a couple pieces of legislation that specifically attacks one COS issue like for example the national debt. When you haven’t been able to accomplish even that straightforward and relative simple task within the political arena with ANY success or the slightest degree of consistency your changes of controlling the political mosh pit of a COS are nill.

    These ardent COS supporters remind me of the inversion of a famous Albert Einstein quote. He stated “If I had an hour to solve a problem I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions.” With the COS cult it’s more along the lines of 5 minutes of thinking on the COS problem and 55 minutes thinking about the solutions that they are never going to be capable or allowed to deliver. Best advice to these people is move on, get grounded on providing legislative solutions and stop with the dress up and pretend founding father play acting.

    • David Dietrich says:

      Mr Wood,

      The COS clarity to follow up on my brilliance is based on the true premise that its supporters can manage a Convention for proposing Amendments that will be populated by commissioners selected by the state legislators that have seen the fallacy of relying on elected and appointed federal officials is the last best hope of our constitutional republic. This is like the mature adult with a perfect driving record who enters and wins the Formula One Grand Prix. There is the Constitution and then there is the wishful thinking of those who think something else is better.

      But, I’m willing to be patient with these naive semi-constitutionalists and progressive Republicans who think they can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they wish to follow. Unlike them, I happen to think the Constitution is completely credible. Get a few individuals elected to federal office who claim to be conservative and see how well they serve the People. When you haven’t been able to gain any traction there, how do you expect to do anything for your country. The chances of controlling the political mosh pit of our federal government are nil.

      These ardent supporters of our federal officials remind me of a famous PT Barnum quote: “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Without the COS, it’s more along the lines of no thinking and much sucking, as they are never going to be capable of or allowed to deliver. Best advice to these people is to MoveOn.org. Get really progressive with Georgie and his pals. Stop the pretend conservatism and wear your panties and makeup.

      Sincerely,

      David Dietrich

      • lawrence wood says:

        Thank You! You have made my point with your insightful rebuttal and skilled logic.

        • David Dietrich says:

          Mr Wood,

          Why thank you as well! I appreciate your compliment! There may be hope for you after all!

          Sincerely,

          David Dietrich

          • lawrence wood says:

            lol, well that fits perfectly can’t distinguish sarcasm from a compliment as well as being unable to separate play acting from real politics.

  5. Liberty Bella says:

    Thank you Mr. Woods!

    When the Communists running the Democratic Party are done with the Convention of States, we Won’t have a Second Amendment left in the Constitution. George Soros is a Nazi. The first thing the Nazis did in the 1930s was to disarm the population so they could load them up into cattle cars and send them to the gas chambers to their deaths.

    The only thing standing between the Patriots and the Marxists in America is our ability to protect ourselves FROM THEM. People like the Nazi posting on this site above are part of the propaganda machine in America…. preying on the “dumbed down” and the sheeple. Mostly women and Christians.

    Liberty Bella

    • David Dietrich says:

      Thank you Bella Donna!

      When the true patriots who are not part of the progressive movement are done with the Convention of States, we will have a serious reduction in the power of the federal government. George Soros is a Communist. The first thing the Communists did in the 1930s was to disarm the population so they could remove them to the Gulag are simply let them starve to death.

      The only thing standing between the Patriots and the Progressives in America is our ability to protect ourselves FROM THEM. People like the Communist posting on this site above are part of the propaganda machine in America…preying on the “dumbed down” and the sheeple. Mostly ill-informed, but otherwise well-intentioned people.

      Sincerely,

      David Dietrich

      • rbrown says:

        What makes you think the delegates to the convention would be “true patriots who are not part of the progressive movement”?

        In the majority of Republican-dominated states, the legislatures have a Republican majority, but NOT a conservative majority. The “progressive” Republicans side with their Democrat counterparts, ensuring very little if any conservative legislation sees the light of day.

        Since we are told the legislatures will choose the delegates, I think it is safe to predict that the moderate/liberal majorities in these Republican states will select moderates and liberals to represent them and their desired changes to the Constitution.

        The amendments from the hand-picked delegates of the mock convention (which were more than 95% conservatives) were bad enough. What would the moderates and liberals come up with at a real convention?

        • David Dietrich says:

          Mr Brown,

          That’s the beauty of the constitutional process we have. They may or may not be! But, since all 27 of our current Amendments have been proposed by progressives in Congress, and ratified by the people of the several states, this gives us an opportunity to do it another way.

          Since you appear to be on the side of the group that would do nothing or hope for the best, we will most certainly get nowhere in this matter. When you come up with an organization that you can call your own that you expect to fight for our constitutional republic, and actually has a real chance of making it happen, then you will have a serious argument. Otherwise, wailing and gnashing of teeth will get you absolutely nowhere.

          And unlike you, I am willing to risk our defined constitutional process, rather than sit on my hands and watch the unconstitutional actions consume our lives. If your so-called “moderates and liberals” propose Amendments that increase the power of the federal government and the states ratify those Amendments, then we get what we get. While that’s a stretch, our current road is reality.

          The Amendments from the hand-picked delegates of the mock convention were quite laudable. What better ones might come along when the commissioners have more time and resources to get the job done right?

          Sincerely,

          David Dietrich

          • Rbrown says:

            My example is very pertinent. Simply because I don’t feel we are in the right circumstances to use a certain part of the Constitution does not mean I don’t defend the entire constitution. Your example of needing the right circumstances in order to declare war on Canada is exactly what I’m talking about.

            And in your topsy-turvy world, you have distorted logic to the point that, only those who want to CHANGE the constitution are the ones who are defending it. Hilarious!

            Finally, call me what you will, I will stand with Scalia. This is a terrible time to write a constitution, in whole or in part. Despite your denials, that is what the amendment process does. It writes new sections to be added to the Constitution.

  6. Vivian M. says:

    Add Black folks who don’t know better to that list of Women and Christians gullible to the Communist Influence in America and the destruction of our Constitution and our Republic.

    Their preachers get paid “walking around” money to get out the black vote in their churches for the democratic party to keep them all on the plantation voting – just look at the REVEREND Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton living like KINGS while their black followers live in abject poverty for generations.

  7. David Dietrich says:

    brown says:
    October 6, 2016 at 10:55 AM

    Real conservatives support defending the Constitution, not subjecting it to misguided amendments. This mock convention did show us that those ignorant of the Constitution will, with the best of intentions, propose amendments that will undermine it.

    One proposed amendment (accidentally?) overrides Article 1, Section 1, legitimizing power that has previously been usurped. Another WEAKENS the power of the states to block unconstitutional federal actions.

    If that is what we get with a hand-picked delegation that is over 95% Republicans, just wait to see what we get when Democrats are added to the mix in larger numbers.

    ***RESPONSE***

    Mr Brown,

    Real conservatives actually defend the entire Constitution, not just say they support it by picking and choosing among its more pleasing components. This mock convention did show us that those knowledgeable of the Constitution will, with the best of intentions, propose amendments that will strengthen it.

    As for your allegations that certain proposals from the mock convention would either override or weaken aspects of our constitutional republic, I’ll be happy to discuss those with you. Please lay them out for everyone to see. Empty statements tend to be, well, empty.

    If the outstanding results demonstrated by the mock convention are any indication of how well the real event will play out, we can expect a constitutional process that would make our Founding Fathers proud. Just wait to see what we get when Republicans are added to the in mix in larger numbers.

    Sincerely,

    David Dietrich

    • Rbrown says:

      Real conservatives want to defend the Constitution, not amend it. I’ve never said I’m opposed to or not defending any particular part of the Constitution. I just don’t believe it is wise to use it at this time and under these circumstances.

      As an example, do you think we should declare war on Canada, or are you picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you support? I suspect you don’t support such a war declaration at this time and under current circumstances either. 😉

      As Scalia warned, “This is not a good century to write a constitution.” I would say that even goes for writing part of a constitution.

      As for the flaws in the proposed amendments, those will be published nation-wide shortly. I doubt you’ll miss it. Those who are well-versed in what the constitution now says tend to pick up on these flaws without it being pointed out to them. I’ve given you some clues. That will do for now.

  8. David Dietrich says:

    Mr Brown,

    Real Conservatives don’t just “want to defend [part of] the Constitution.” Rather, they actually defend the [entire] Constitution. In perhaps not as many words, you have made it clear that you do oppose a particular part of the Constitution, by refusing to accept its relevance to our current constitutional crisis. Your notion that it is “[un]wise to use it at this time and under these circumstances” only reveals your true colors. As Thomas Paine wrote, “the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country.” I, for one, have no patience for such men.

    Your ridiculous example only serves to demonstrate how shallow is your understanding of that axiom. But, to humor you, if Congress deems Canada to be an existential threat to the United States, then they should declare war on Canada before we actually take up arms against them. Unlike every Congress since 1941, I certainly support and defend that part of the Constitution. But, as you don’t appear to understand how a constitutional government should work, it further undermine your credibility.

    This is a time for action! Ben Franklin knew the implications of beginning our fragile experiment when he responded, “a republic, if you can keep it.” This is not about “writing a Constitution,” but rather righting the wrongs that have been committed over the last 200 years. Your idea bag appears to be empty. Mine is revealed by the full force of the Constitution. To bring home my point, please refer to the real Constitution in force today: https://www.congress.gov/constitution-annotated. It is not your father’s Constitution. It is progressivism at its finest.

    As for your secret squirrel approach to opposing Constitutional action, I can’t think of a better example of the reason for our state of affairs. Whereas you scheme behind closed doors as a devoted soldier of the progressive movement, I operate openly, to shine a light on the corruption that has taken over our system. Your “well-versed” attack on the Constitution is like Caesar crossing the Rubicon in 49BC. No more “clues” are necessary. That will do for now.

    Sincerely,

    David Dietrich

  9. David Dietrich says:

    Rbrown says:
    October 7, 2016 at 12:34 PM

    My example is very pertinent. Simply because I don’t feel we are in the right circumstances to use a certain part of the Constitution does not mean I don’t defend the entire constitution. Your example of needing the right circumstances in order to declare war on Canada is exactly what I’m talking about.

    And in your topsy-turvy world, you have distorted logic to the point that, only those who want to CHANGE the constitution are the ones who are defending it. Hilarious!

    Finally, call me what you will, I will stand with Scalia. This is a terrible time to write a constitution, in whole or in part. Despite your denials, that is what the amendment process does. It writes new sections to be added to the Constitution.

    ***RESPONSE***

    Mr Brown,

    Your ability to apply logic in such an important debate makes you a weak opponent. You don’t even understand why we are even having this discussion. You look at it as some kind of joke. You think that drawing an equivalence between declaring war and reining in the federal government bolsters your argument. Far from it. You’ve lost the bubble, if you ever had it. Whereas you are happy to hold back on parts of the Constitution when we are not in the “right circumstances,” I am happy to use the entire Constitution all the time. This is not some kind of game and a part-time experiment. Rather, it is deadly serious and must be constantly engaged. you don’t understand the difference between the People and States on one side and the Federal Government on the other.

    In your progressive world, you are perfectly satisfied with the way things are going. There’s nothing to see here. Just move along and accept everything the federal government does to you, no matter how far its departure from the original Constitution. Will the gas chambers be enough to awaken you? Very sad.

    Finally, call me what you want. I will stand with Scalia. He said, essentially, that “the risks inherent in a Convention of States are so minimal — and the potential benefits so great — that holding a Convention is one of the best things our country could do.” While I don’t need his advice, he certainly knows what he’s talking about. This may be the last time we have to propose Amendments to the Constitution that can bring us back from the brink. Despite your assertions to the contrary, a Convention for proposing Amendments merely proposes Amendments. It is then up to the states to ratify (or not) them.

    Sincerely,

    David Dietrich

  10. David Dietrich says:

    Rbrown says:
    October 7, 2016 at 1:07 PM

    I have never hear any in the “Constitution preservationist” camp promoting the “just elect the right people” idea, but I have heard many of you “Constitution revisionists” accuse us of it.

    Second, by your interpretation of Black’s Law, even the 1787 convention could not be a constitutional convention, because even that convention only had the power to propose changes. Although they were called for the purpose of “revising the Articles” to “make the Constitution adequate”, they too had a ratification process to consider the convention’s proposals.

    In fact, no convention in our history fits your distorted interpretation, since no convention has been empowered to directly make changes to a constitution. They always are followed by some sort of ratification process. Just because Black’s Law doesn’t stipulate the ratification process to follow doesn’t mean it cannot exist. By your view, there would be no such thing as a constitutional convention, and never has been!

    And to hold this view, you also have to IGNORE the second part of this definition (which you provided), which says “Art. V of U.S. Const. provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on the application of two-thirds of the states.” You have simply ignored this portion of your definition.

    It seems you are now fighting against the definition which you provided. Oh, the irony!

    Then, to add to this irony, you declare, “That’s why it is used by lawyers and law students as their foundation. They are happy to misapply the constitution when it suits their needs.” Is that why you are using it too?

    No, the Black’s Law definition (which you provided) isn’t wrong. What it says is that a constitutional convention is called “for the PURPOSE of framing, revising, or amending”, but it does not say the convention fulfills this entire purpose. It does not rule out the possibility of a ratification process to follow, as the second part of fulfilling this purpose.

    ***RESPONSE***

    Mr Brown,

    First, I have always heard the semi-constitutionalist camp promoting the “just elect the right people” argument. Other than that, while they may decry the state of the Republic, they have no viable solution to offer. Crickets.

    Second, I don’t need to interpret Black’s Dictionary. It’s definition of a Constitutional Convention does not apply to a Convention for proposing Amendments. Here it is again, though, for those who may choose to read it:

    “A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.”

    Notice (I mean really try to understand the words this time) that this type of Convention acts upon the Constitution directly. On the contrary, a Convention for proposing Amendments does no such thing. Instead, it is only the States that have that authority through the ratification process.

    As for your misguided notion that the Founders had no authority to write a new Constitution (meaning you believe our Constitution is illegitimate), you have conveniently left off two major points. First, the Founders had full authority to “render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.” Notice that last bit regarding “exigencies.” And second, both the states and Congress approved their request. So, you’re wrong again.

    In fact, our original constitutional convention fits the Black’s definition exactly. That’s why Black used it! They had both authority and did the deed, as they say. You still don’t understand the difference between writing or changing the document itself and proposing possible changes. Just because Black’s clearly spells out the definition of a constitutional convention doesn’t mean you have to apply it to a Star Trek convention as well. By your view, the federal government founded the States, and not the other way around!

    And to hold to my view, you also have to ACCEPT the second part of Article V, which provides that Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” Unlike you, I know that there is no authority in the Constitution to call a constitutional convention. You have simply ignored this fact from the beginning.

    It seems that you are now fighting against the very Constitution you purport to defend. Oh, the irony!

    Then, to add to the irony, you seem to think that lawyers today use natural law as the basis of our Constitution. In other words, you still don’t understand Black’s definition! Is that why you don’t refer to Article V of the Constitution?

    No, the Black’s definition (which you love to misapply) isn’t wrong. But, you are. You still can’t comprehend why this discussion is taking place. Until you recognize the facts as well as the law in this case, you should stick with street performances. A constitutional convention has nothing to do with a Convention for proposing Amendments. Of course, there is also the possibility of a comet hitting the earth. Should we consider that as well?

    Sincerely,

    David Dietrich

  11. David Dietrich says:

    lawrence wood says:
    October 7, 2016 at 11:00 AM

    lol, well that fits perfectly can’t distinguish sarcasm from a compliment as well as being unable to separate play acting from real politics.

    ***RESPONSE***

    Mr Wood,

    Col. Well, that fits perfectly. Can’t distinguish sarcasm from sarcasm, as well as being unable to separate your panties from your skirt. You should stick with your dolls.

    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: