February 21, 2017
Letter from Pam Danz to Rep Cody Henson, NC House 113 requeting non-support for HB44 Convention of States bill.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 H D HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION DRHJR40033-BD-6 (01/31) IS A VERY GOOD IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME. It puts a stake through the heart of the COS movement and cleans up the docket so that old COS resolutions cannot pop up and do us mischief. I am a dyed in the wool TEA Party conservative and certainly want the swamp drained, but I am against the COS.
At first glance a Convention of States (COS) seems to be a good way to get our runaway federal government under control. But credible persons such as Chief Justice Berger, JD Joe Wolverton II, VA State Senator Bob Marshall, Phyllis Schlafly, and Dr. Thomas Woods, Jr., say it would be a disaster.
First and foremost: It would not solve the problems that it purports to solve. If politicians can ignore the language of one Constitution, then they can ignore the language of another. People who break rules don’t start obeying them just because you write some new ones. Our main problem in Washington is that our legislature ignores the Constitution we have. They have gone way beyond the 18 Enumerated Powers and ignored the prohibition against any laws made by anyone but the Congress. We have an alphabet soup of agencies making our laws and the COS will not change this. It may exacerbate it.
There is the great danger in this COS is that the Amendments proposed by Mark Levin such as #6, “Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to reauthorization and review,” would legitimize such currently unconstitutional departments such as the EPA and the Education department. By writing laws to control them you say that you can ignore the Enumerated Powers, as they have been doing, and allow the federal government to create and oversee any such departments. It would create legitimacy for them. They now rely on twisting the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 3), the General Welfare Clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 1), or the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 18). Such perversions of the clauses can be challenged and corrected. We want to address one problem at a time instead of trying to fix the whole mess in one fell swoop. Trying to do too much at one time gives you legislation like Obamacare, full of hidden earmarks and compromises.
The scariest reason to avoid a COS is that the Constitution is just as likely to be remade to serve the liberal agenda as the conservative one. George Soros is pumping a lot of money into the cause. If you read Article V, you will find that there is no rule included in it as to how the delegates to the convention would be chosen. It could be that the very lawmakers that are currently ignoring our current Constitution would be in charge of the next. The exhortation to “Trust me!” by those who are pushing the COS is not a sufficient protection against undesirable delegates.
Proponents of the COS also say that since the states have to ratify any amendments that are proposed, we are safe. However, if the delegates at a COS come up with a new Constitution - that new Constitution could have its own new method of ratification. [That would be the new Constitution's counterpoint to our existing Article VII.] That new method of ratification could be anything the delegates want. It could be majority vote in Congress. It could be approval by the President. Whatever they want!
Remember the only other time in our history that a COS was called, the delegates were given strict instructions to simply amend the Articles of Confederation and, instead, those honorable and wise men came up with a whole new constitution. The rascals we have around now could also disobey their instructions. All we really need to protect us from metastasizing government growth and spending is to demand that our beloved Constitution be obeyed as written. Putting honest constitutional conservatives like Mark Meadows into office in Washington and in our Statehouse, and standing firm in revivifying our Constitution.
Blessings and good wishes,
Refuting Objections - But Nullification Isn't in the Constitution http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/03/26/refuting-objections-but-nullification-isnt-in-the-constitution/
Misreading McCulloch vs Maryland http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/03/30/misreading-mcculloch-v-maryland/
Nullification Arguments For
Delegates to an Article V Convention Can't Be Controlled by State Laws!
There is a safe way to smack down the federal government: LEARN and ENFORCE the Constitution of 1787 we already have! We have been ignoring it for 100 years: THAT is the problem.
Publius Huldah Blog on Nullification: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/
Mark Levin Refuted,Keep The Feds In Check With Nullification Not Amendments: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/mark-levin-refuted-keep-the-feds-in-check-with-nullification-not-amendments/
ToBeRight.com: The Convention of States Scam:
The Development of Article V, U.S. Constitution, at the Federal Convention of 1787:
Tenth Amendment Center: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/
Arguments Against an Article V Convention of States (COS) Convention:
Former law professor Rob Natelson is "the brains" for various factions pushing for an Article V convention. Read this and you will see that the claims COS makes that States control a convention from start to finish are built on a foundation of misrepresentations....... Read the following:
Rob Natelson Perverts the Necessary and Proper Clause and Thinks in Circles: News With Views: http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah132.htm
The Truth is that Congress has all the power to organize and set up the convention Congress "calls" under Article V.
BUT! Once the convention convenes and the Delegates seated, they are invested with that inherent sovereign right of a people to alter, abolish, or throw off their Form of government. Declaration of Independence, 2nd para.
The Constitution of 1787 is our Form of Government.
Delegates to a convention can throw it off. And propose a new constitution with a new mode of ratification.
Do you trust the Delegates?
Oh! You don't know who they will be, do you?
4/15/2015: Gov Sarah Palin on Debunking The Myths of A Convention of States: http://conservatives4palin.com/2015/04/gov-sarah-palin-%E2%80%A2-debunking-myths-of-a-convention-of-states.html
Some questions to consider. NC legislature's Joint Resolution Applying
to Congress for An Article V Convention of States (HR 48)
To: "Chris Whitmire" <email@example.com>, "Rep. Chris Millis" <Chris.Millis@ncleg.net>
Subject: H.J.R. 48 Feb 4, 2015
Date: Mon, Mar 2, 2015 2:50 PM
Dear Representatives Millis and Whitmire; Attached is the latest copy from the NCLEG site on this Joint Resolution APPLYING TO CONGRESS FOR AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF THE STATES WITH THE PURPOSE OF PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION I have several questions for the Legislature pertaining to the Legislature's choice of means for attaining the goals it has set for H.J.R. 48. The first question: What or Who convinced the Legislature to choose the Convention of States Method for proposing Amendments to attain fidelity to the Constitution when this procedure has never successfully been accomplished before? The 2nd question: Is the Legislature familiar with the fact that our US Congress, President and Judicial Branches have continually and progressively ignored the US Constitution as written, and the US Congress has not successfully been able to enforce compliance to it? The 3rd question: If the stated goal(s) of H.J.R. 48 are 1) to be guardians against actual or potential abuses of power by the federal government, 2) the solemn duty of the States to protect freedom and opportunity for NC citizens, including the generations to come, and 3) to place clear restraints on these and related abuses of power? Then, isn't jousting at windmills a terrible waste of taxpayer time and money, considering that we have to fund the operations of the General Assembly in Raleigh? Wouldn't doing that seem to you a total waste of your time, and subsequently, taxpayer expense? Would it not also seem a waste or the General Assembly's time in efficiently attaining your presumed goal as stated in H.J.R. 48, namely, -- Thomas Jefferson: "Anyone who desires to be ignorant AND free desires what never was and never will be.
Article V Convention of States Arguments For
Article V Convention of States: http://www.conventionofstates.com/newsblog
Hear Michael Farris lay out the case for an Article V COS Convention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msq-Iw3rX_4
Michael Farris Response to Publius Huldah: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conventionofstates/pages/145/attachments/original/1410015956/Answering-Huldah.pdf?1410015956
Hear R. Charles “Kacprowicz” Casper
Hear Article V Countermand Amendment here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q64-ObpRCyc&feature=youtu.be
Article V: Amending The Constitution: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm
NC Senate Bill 399 Filed 3/24/2015 for An Article V Convention of States
Senate Bill 398 was filed today, March 24, 2015 meaning the Senate has introduced a bill to have NC apply to Congress for an Article V Convention of the States. This is a companion bill to H321- which is the House version. As soon as our Senate bill is assigned to a committee we will let you know.
We have an upcoming House Judiciary Committee hearing and vote. We don't have a confirmed date yet, but it could be as early as April 1. When we get a firm date we will send you a notice to email and call key committee members. So be getting your mind right and your typing fingers ready!
Finally, we will hold another statewide conference call on Monday night (March 30) at 8 pm. We will give some updates and then we will begin a series of "educational seminars" regarding the most common objections to Article V and a Convention of States. Monday night we will spend a few minutes addressing the "runaway convention" myth. Don't miss it!
Call in number is 712-432-1212
Call ID number is 921 466 254#
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).
The founding fathers had good reason to pen the Tenth Amendment.
The issue of power – and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments – was extremely important to the America’s founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies.
Adoption of the Constitution of 1787 was opposed by a number of well-known patriots including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others. They passionately argued that the Constitution would eventually lead to a strong, centralized state power which would destroy the individual liberty of the People. Many in this movement were given the poorly-named tag “Anti-Federalists.”
The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 largely because of the intellectual influence and personal persistence of the Anti-Federalists and their allies.
It’s quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.
When states and local communities take the lead on policy, the people are that much closer to the policymakers, and policymakers are that much more accountable to the people. Few Americans have spoken with their president; many have spoken with their mayor.
Adherence to the Tenth Amendment is the first step towards ensuring liberty in the United States. Liberty through decentralization.
The federal system limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of the national government, as held in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). However, where Congress or the Executive has the power to implement programs, or otherwise regulate, there are, arguably, certain incentives in the national government encouraging States to become the instruments of such national policy, rather than to implement the program directly. One incentive is that state implementation of national programs places implementation in the hands of local officials who are closer to local circumstances. Another incentive is that implementation of federal programs at the state level would in principle limit the growth of the national bureaucracy.