601 Comments
Sep 3, 2022Liked by Robert W Malone MD, MS

First, I want to thank you for changing my view on the John Birch Society. All my life I viewed them as little better than the KKK. Now I see how wrong I was.

Second, I have long been against a Constitutional Convention. I don't understand why bright people such as Mark Levin would call for one. It would be an unmitigated disaster. There isn't enough genuine wisdom and humility now to successfully create a new constitution that would be in any way superior to the one we have. The problem with our current Constitution is not the constitution itself but the lack of knowledge about it and, in some quarters, contempt for it.

A Constitutional Convention called now would speed up the demise of our country. All the risk would be on the downside.

Expand full comment

Agree 💯.

The only possible upside we have is in NOT changing the constitution and instead simply following it. The powerful forces who would manipulate the process today would just erase it in a heartbeat

Expand full comment

For any proposal coming out of a Convention, 75% of state legislatures would have to say yes, before it becomes law.

Expand full comment

Not if the new constitution doesn't author that rule. A new Constitution can make ANY rule it wants. It doesn't have to adhere to any rule in the current Constitution.

Expand full comment

Mark - This is not a constitutional convention. It's a convention of states. And the state convention can't pass anything other than a proposal that has to be sent out to 50 states! Seventy-five percent (75%) of the state legislatures have to vote YES before a proposal becomes law. That's 38 state legislatures. And both the upper and lower chambers in each state must vote yes. If one chamber votes NO the proposal doesn't pass in that state.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately you are incorrect.

Expand full comment

Mark - Don't believe the fear mongers. They do not believe that intelligent conservatives are capable of self-government. They choose to do nothing as the federal government weaponizes agencies against it's own citizens. Why is it that the John Birch Society is in alignment with leftists, communists, and globalists on this issue? Perhaps it's godlessness. If you are truly conservative, be bold, take action and place faith before fear. These intelligent men are not fearful. https://conventionofstates.com/endorsements

Expand full comment
Sep 5, 2022·edited Sep 5, 2022

That is what corruption of the powerful would do, for sure!

Expand full comment

Clearly you don’t understand that the lack of limitations of the federal government, originally provided for a 13 sovereign-state nation with less than 4 million people and no electricity in homes, does not serve a nation with 50 sovereign states and over 339 million people connected to the world via the internet. It is long overdue that spending and term limits must be constitutional for our federal government and congress will NEVER do that so the ONLY path is via an Article V COS (restricted to amendments only by Article V) which states limit via application to ONLY limiting the federal term, spending, and jurisdiction.

Expand full comment

You are over the target Denah. For some obscure reason the John Birch Society is aligned with leftists, communists, and globalists in opposition to conservatives who are trying to constitutionally save this Republic. https://conventionofstates.com/endorsements

Expand full comment

Sounds like an oxymoron to me. JDS is the antithesis of leftists, communists, and globalists.

Expand full comment

Is that the John Dirch Society?

Expand full comment

Yes. If we followed the Constitution in every respect, we would have a healthy, thriving country. The best outcome from a convention would be disagreement so profound that the gathering would disband without accomplishing anything. But that wouldn’t happen. The conservatives would cave (tell me, why are people so afraid of being called names?), and we would lose all our freedoms.

Expand full comment

Yes it would put us on the fast track to totalitarianism.

Expand full comment

Open your eyes. That is the path we are on NOW! The Federal Government, the Deep State, Media Allies, the Fed and Wall Street are united and have almost unlimited power. That is Fascisam. They successfully, through fear and coercion successfully got a vast majority of the population to voluntarily take an experimental "vaccine" and multiple follow up shots, despite mounting scientific evidence, it was dangerous, deadly to some, and has profound effects on Woman mensuration, young men and boys hearts, etc. Open your eyes.

Expand full comment

My eyes are open. Please don't be insulting. Nearly everyone who subscribes to Dr. Malone's Substack is well aware.

Expand full comment

How many of you were willing to refuse experimental jabs, refuse masking, and deal with the consequences? If 5 to 10% of the people have done that, mandates would collapse immediately.

It is time for individuals to claim their liberty by refusing to follow unconstitutional orders.

Expand full comment

We're already over the cliff the only question now is how will we land.

Expand full comment

Agree. However, we are losing them anyway. A con con probably not the answer but what is? Sarah Hoyt's trumbrils and heads on pikes?

Expand full comment

Know your power in the Constitution and know your enemy. That enemy is quite adept at moving to either political party and label. https://rumble.com/v1i9vvr-article-v-con-con-could-pave-way-for-technocracy-warns-expert-patrick-wood.html

Expand full comment

Luckily that’s not the question. An Article V Convention of States is something that has NEVER happened. It is not Constitutional Convention because it is specially, by the very wording of Article V, restricted to only proposing amendments to our existing constitution ( an Article V cannot write an entirely new constitution, unless that’s what states apply to do — no such application exists at the moment).

Expand full comment

Do you know about jury nullification? Jurors may defy the judges orders and issue innocent verdicts. They are sovereign in this power.

Convention delegates are empowered with the same sovereignty to act as they see fit. Not only that, but the appointment of delegates, the rules, the agenda, may be set by nefarious deep state actors.

It is time to step up and bring this government into compliance with the constitution rather than amend it.

Expand full comment

PLUS ... What makes anyone think that a power-mad FedGov who brazenly violates the existing Constitution, will obey and enforce these new amendments??

Traitors don't care about law; they care about POWER. WE love the Constitution, and know we must have a Rule of Law. We have been reluctant to go beyond, but it may be necessary.

And remember that the original Constiturional Convention WAS CALLED ONLY TO AMEND THE Articles of Confederation, and specifically defined the process to do so.... NOT TO WRITE A NEW GOV'T STRUCTURE!

SO ... Hamilton, Adams, and other Federalists hijacked it, without permission, to make an entirely new gov't. So...It has happened before.

Beware.

Expand full comment

Commissioners are held accountable by their individual states. Each state has a faithful commissioner law. So, it is not true that a commissioner sent to the convention can "act as they see fit". They are, in fact, held accountable to respect the limitations put forth in the resolution.

Expand full comment

Denah,

The purpose for application to Congress to call a Convention of States is to keep the entire process under the umbrella of the existing Constitution.

The several states ratified the Constitution with Article V as a part. The concurrence and approval by Congress to call a Convention of States is therefore pro-forma.

Can you imagine that the Congress, created by the states with the ratification of the Constitution, now turns around and tells the states to get lost with their application to call a Convention of States under Article V...???

Such action by Congress leaves the states to act on their own to call a convention. Such a convention could indeed turn into a 2nd Constitutional Convention.

The power by Congress to approve or call a 2nd Constitutional Convention simply does not exist.

Expand full comment

Great clarification, Ingo. Exactly. The States don't need Congress to call a a Constitutional Convention. That could be called on the power of the state, alone. The groups calling for Article V Conventions of States (Convention of States Action, US Term Limits, and Balance Budget Amendment, to name a few) are following the Constitutional process to propose amendments BECAUSE we believe in and support our beautiful Constitution and wish to see it upheld. But, as we have already proven 27 times, there is always room for amendments to create a more perfect union.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Denah. I am pleased that you understand my point re application to Congress to call a COS.

I am concerned about the constant talk of limiting federal spending by constitutional amendment. This talk amounts to a tacit acknowledgment that the federal government is entitled to spend funds from collection of income taxes, something the framers very much opposed.

1. The reason for out-of-control federal spending lies singularly in the fact that the 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified in 1913.

2. The solution to control federal spending lies in the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments, It does not lie in a convoluted idea about amendments to the U.S. Constitution that are to control spending.

3. The Income Tax amendment allowed the federal bureaucracy to collect taxes for the U.S. House to appropriate and spend with concurrence by the U.S. Senate that is popularly elected with campaign contributions from big money center banks.

4. The U.S. Constitution lists as source for federal revenue Excises, Duties, Imposts and a per-Capita Tax to be collected by the several states and paid directly to the U.S. Treasury. The amendment to the Constitution of an Income Tax and popular election of U.S. Senators is entirely contrary to the intent of the framers.

5. The only currency to be issued by the U.S. Treasury as "legal tender" is the U.S. Treasury Bill of Credit which is known as the "Greenback". The Greenback successfully circulated previously in parallel with other U.S. currencies for over a hundred years. Greenbacks are an ideal currency with which to compensate service by federal employees. The federal employees themselves will apply pressure on Congress not to over-authorize an issuance of Greenbacks lest the value of the Greenback decline to circulate on par with U.S. Dollar banknote currency issued by state-chartered banks. The acceptance by the American people of the Greenback as "legal tender" on par with U.S. Dollar currency in essence can be seen as acknowledging satisfaction received from service given by federal employees.

6. Besides amendments to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments which are utmost on the agenda of a COS, the convention can also deal with term limits for U.S. Representatives, term limits for U.S. Supreme Court Justices, prohibiting the interference by the federal government in the education of minors, limiting federal government control over allodial lands, establishing advent of personhood.

Expand full comment

Indeed! We SHOULD follow the constitution in every respect, including utilizing the path our Founders provided in Article V for states creating constitutional amendments to rein in an out of control federal government.

Expand full comment

But it might not reign it in. It might exacerbate the current situation by institutionalizing the corruption into a new constitution.

There is nothing wrong with the one we have. The problem is respect for it, and compliance.

Expand full comment

We’re not talking about a new constitution. Article V limits the convention to amendments only and the States’ application limits the range of the proposed amendments. In the case of COSA, the application limits proposed amendments to:

•limiting federal terms

•limiting federal spending

•limiting federal jurisdiction

That’s all they can propose and whatever they agreed upon must be ratified by 38 states. It would only take 13 states to prevent anything from happening at all, but 38 states must agree for anything at all to happen.

Expand full comment

Once something like this is convened it becomes an uncontrollable freight train. Not a good idea. The character and wisdom that was in the room in Philadelphia in 1789 doesn't exist today.

Expand full comment

That is not true at all. Article V itself limits an Article V Convention (which did not exist prior to being defined in 1787) to amendments only and the state resolutions for the Application restrict the convention to the subject matter defined by the states. All resolutions for an Application must match in order for Congress to call the convention. Beyond calling the convention, Congress is not involved. Even then, the convention can only propose amendments and 38 states are required to ratify any amendments. 27 amendments have been created by Congress proposing and States ratifying. We only seek to use the exact same process except the States propose so we can propose the amendments Congress never will (the ones which will limit them). The fear-mongering is being created by those who don't want the federal government limited and, unfortunately, they've been successful enough to spread to all sides of the aisle. They're all myths. Please read up on Professor Robert Natelson's writings about Article V. He is a reknowned constitutional scholar respected in the Supreme Court.

Expand full comment

Denah, as to the limits for proposed amendments regarding federal terms:

1. There should be no limit on terms for U.S. Senators provided the 17th Amendment is repealed. U.S. Senators selected by state legislators serve for six years, unless recalled for cause. Whether a U.S. Senators is reselected or not will be influenced by the vote of the people who vote for the state legislators who select the U.S. Senators.

2. There should be a limit of five terms or ten years for Representatives to the U.S. House. The framers intended to have U.S. Representatives serve for one or two terms and then return to private life. A five-term limit for U.S. Representative will bring forth candidates that are truly motivated to serve, rather than candidates that look for a lifelong career in federal politics.

3. Federal spending will be totally controlled by the states, once the 16th and 17th Amendments are repealed. The Constitution provides for uniform taxes throughout the country, which are Excises, Duties, Imposts, and a per-Capita Tax to be collected by the states and paid by them directly to the U.S. Treasury. States that fail to use the Anglo-Saxon taxation system to collect the per-Capita Tax will experience an exodus of their residents to more tax friendly states.

The Congress should bring back the "Greenback" with which to pay federal employees, employees of the Departments of Treasury, Defense and State excepted. This requires issuance of U.S. Treasury Bills of Credit which are Dollar denominated Greenbacks. For Greenbacks to circulate at par with gold standard U.S. Dollar banknote currency, the American people will vote for the kind of federal services desired by pressuring their congressional representatives to control the issuance of Greenbacks. An amendment to prohibit the federal government from making anything but U.S. Treasury Bills of Credit "legal tender" in payment of debt is necessary.

4. Yes, jurisdictions regarding activities on allodial lands must be strictly off limits. Pollution control must be mandated at the state and local level in cooperation with other states and the federal government. Amendments to that affect are quite efficacious.

Expand full comment

And if we do nothing? What then? Status quo and the deep state accrues more power.

Expand full comment

I have heard the argument "there is nothing wrong; leave it the way our fore fathers wrote it" numerous times. But, in fact we have had Amendments numerous times starting with the first ten - our Bill of Rights; then others like the ending of slavery, giving women the right to vote, limiting the presidency to just 2 terms. So can we acknowledge it has been Amended and these are all good things? Can we also acknowledge there are major problems in Washington DC that Congress will never fix?

Next step is...?

Expand full comment

All good? What about Amendment XVIII which arguably gave rise to criminal enterprise.

Expand full comment

So you honestly believe that new amendments could be drawn up that would in some measure restore sanity and reality to our Constitution from the current crop of politicians we now have?

That is a utopian dream.

Expand full comment

Keep in mind this is driven by the states and bypasses Congress. Yes, at the state level the legislatures are still politicians but in theory they are more accountable to their constituents. Additionally it does not mean every state is going to select politicians for their delegations - they could be business leaders or a well-known Constitutionalist. So again... what options do we have? Have we lost the American dream...?

Expand full comment

I'm not afraid! I have ALWAYS been willing to speak up, love the debate. 75. But still sharp!

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022·edited Sep 3, 2022Liked by Robert W Malone MD, MS

Funny about that JDS attitude problem. Back in the '60s my folks went to a meeting w/ friends only to discover it was a JBS meeting. Mom was horrified certain that fbi agents would be knocking on the door. That goes to show how successful and for how long progressives have been able to smear conservatives.

Expand full comment

In the sixties I was a member of JBS. As I matured I realized there was an element of racism in their separate but equal philosophy and drifted away from JBS. In the remainder of the century, JBS and the rest of American society evolved an acceptance of Black America as an integral part of American society. I witnessed that evolution in my acquaintances and my family. That evolution slammed shut with the Obama/Holder era, in which every event was racialized, as thus was American society reratialized, with white guilt thrown in to seal that racism. We need a period of solid, foundational-American, non-PC freedom to regain our senses, our pride, and our unity.

Expand full comment

Racism, or any other broad stroking of entire segments is misguided and counterproductive. Therefore government is prohibited from discriminating upon the basis of race. However, in a free society people are permitted to believe what they want, fraternize or not with whoever they want.

When individuals no longer have that choice, they are not living in a free society.

It was not that long ago that I heard the saying, “I may disagree with what you’re saying, but I defend to the death your right to say it.”

Expand full comment

💯 There isn't enough genuine wisdom and humility now to successfully create a new constitution that would be in any way superior to the one we have.

Expand full comment

we just need to protect and defend our 1776 Constitution. Oh wait... that is in the OATH we military have all taken and so did Congress, President, etc. Most of what is happening is unconstitutional.

Expand full comment

Great. How about defending our states’ right to an Article V Convention of States, limited to proposing amendments to our Constitution so we can limit this out of control federal government.

Expand full comment

Denah,

You are correct. The writers of Our present Constitution were deeply concerned about the growth of the central state. I think that their inclusion of Article V was the final brake against the tyranny of the federal government.

If you want to know how long this debate has been going on I would suggest reading The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers.

Expand full comment

Totally agree

Expand full comment

There is plentiful. You’re clearly speaking of a select population, perhaps of politicians. But the commissioners sent by the states would be Statesmen, if even politicians, at all. And with multiple commissioners per state combining their influence into one vote for each state and a requirement of 75% of the states to ratify, the chance of manipulation is nullified. Their opportunity To manipulate Congress of far greater and Congress can evoke Article V with two-thirds of Congress… much easier than calling an Article V COS.

Expand full comment

Statesman? And where will you find them? :)

The next thing is to research: who selects these delegates? What is the criteria for selection? What are their powers and what are their limitations if any? Are they in fact sovereign? Who makes the rules of the convention? Who creates the agenda? Probably many other questions would need to be answered before moving to an informed decision.

Expand full comment

Why, in the various States, of course. ;) We have many who have their own small businesses and run for short-term service in the state of Florida. I'm certain all states have these amazing individuals who sacrifice for a short-term, but do not seek to become career politicians.

Each state determines how their commissioners are selected and it is part of their documentation. Florida's commissioner selection process is documented in our state statutes and the "faithful commissioner" clause (which determines how they are held accountable) is part of that.

As for the "rules of the convention", that is well documented and Professor Robert Natelson speaks well to it in this article: https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/Natelson-History-of-Conventions-2017-0808.pdf

All these questions have been addressed and this information is all readily available.

Expand full comment

But a CoS is not about drafting a new constitution, it is about offering amendments to Our existing one.

Expand full comment

Correct! Our problem is not that our current Constitution lacks adequate safeguards on the authority of the federal government, but that the Constitution’s limitations on said authority have been completely ignored. And this all falls at the feet of an ill educated and apathetic populace.

Expand full comment

Adherence to the Constitution and to Court edicts and judgments are voluntary. If the Executive and Legislative Branches don't respect the Constitution and violate it and then ignore the Courts there isn't much to stop them. It would take a national strike for an extended period to do it.

Expand full comment

Naomi that is exactly what I have said for years. As I posted here elsewhere, why have a state attorney general if he refuses to act on unconstitutional edicts handed down by the d.c establishment? We should either fire the buggers of just surrender

Expand full comment

Interesting perception. I don’t think all those reactive to the recent Roe v Wade decision would agree with you.

History has many examples to counter your stated perception.

Expand full comment

I disagree. Our constitution provides no limits on terms or spending. At the time, though it was discussed, those limitations were intentionally left out assuming the people could change it the need ever arose. And the need arose long ago. We are past due for an Article V COS. So let’s just get on with it. Stop blocking the path to this constitutional right.

Expand full comment

John Adams believed “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.“ I’d amend that slightly, for the modern age, to “… for an ethical and informed…”.

Being that we ostensibly have a government of, by and for the People, it is, or should be, up to the people to exert control over that government. With an informed populace, out of control spending would never occur because wastrels elected to office would not be re-elected.

Our federal government is severely limited in scope by the Constitution. Outside the specific enumerated powers, the government has no authority to act. And, it follows, the House has no authority to authorize expenditures for reasons beyond that limited scope. But, when the people as voters have no understanding of the form of their government, nor the reasoning behind that structure, then they are unable to exercise that ultimate control vested in them by the foundational principles of our Constitution.

This ignorant, and apathetic, populace aids and abets their own ruin and subjugation through their lack of interest. A lack promoted by decades of government promoted school curriculum, while the authority over school curriculums is expressly not granted to the federal government.

An Article V convention, while opening a Pandora's box of possible horrible consequences, does nothing to return us to the Principles of the Citizens described by John Adams.

Search for and study the writings of Joanna Martin / Publius Huldah on the subject.

Expand full comment

Joanna (aka Publius) has no constitutional law credentials. Look into the credentials of Professor Robert Natelson, a renowned constitutional scholar quoted in supreme courts across the nation, and review his articles and video testimony debunking all the fears and offering his support of an Article V COS.

Expand full comment

Please don't fall back on "experts." I have become fed up with experts over the last two years. They don't know much more than I do on any topic, not even the ones they claim to have expertise in.

Expand full comment

Upvote (since clicking the "like" button does nothing)!

Expand full comment

That makes no sense. First, you accepted information, above, from Publius who has ZERO constitutional credentials and you didn't even blink.

Second, Professor Robert Natelson is a renowned constitutional scholar. He's not an "expert" (in quotes which suggest a lack of credentials). That's like saying if you needed brain surgery and you could afford the best, you wouldn't seek out the most talented, expert brain surgeon in the nation.

Be logical. Use your critical thinking. I don't just recommend that you blindly trust Professor Natelson, I'm advising that you look into his credentials so you understand why the Supreme Court quotes him. He is the leading expert (no quotes) on Article V of our Constitution and all he says makes 100% sense when you read Article V, read the historical conversation about Article V, read the court rulings on Convention of States and Article V, and read the resolutions being passed through the various state legislatures which clearly dictate limits.

If you insist on tuning out the only people who know the truth, you will only continue to live in the lie.

Expand full comment

Thank you. I applaud what you have contributed to this discussion.

You see the same problem as I do.

Expand full comment

The Constitution sets up the structure of the government. The Bill of Rights are the first amendments to the Constitution and were put there to guarantee the citizenry the government would not infringe on basic rights. The Legislature is tasked with spending. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. The Founders never envisioned members of Congress would get elected and wish to stay in that office forever. They assumed the members would want to get back to their normal lives when their terms of office ended. This seems to have worked fairly well until the 20th century. All presidents before FDR followed Washington's example and declined to run for a third term.

Be careful what you ask for. A Constitutional Convention or a Convention of the States could go places that would make the future hellish.

Expand full comment

“The more laws the less justice.” Yes, so we have the bill of rights to protect us. How well is it doing? First amendment? No. Second amendment? No. Fourth amendment, searches, warrants? No. Fifth amendment, “not be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law? No. Ninth and 10th amendments, states rights? Barely recognized.

Total score? F

The answer is not moral laws. The answer is accountability and forcing government to comply with the constitution as it exists.

Expand full comment

My viewpoint exactly.

Expand full comment

The legislature is tasked with spending, but they have abdicated their responsibilities. The Department of Education, an executive branch department, spends billions of dollars with strings attached. Fiscal restraint is one of the three "allowed" topics at a Convention of States.

Expand full comment

Federal over-reach is another topic for COS. The Dept of Education has on their website that their authority is very limited because Education is a States Rights issue! So how does a Federal department with limited authority have over 4,000 employees and an $86B budget? DC is broke and it is going to take the states and us the people to regain control.

Expand full comment

The Constitution is not completely ignored, but there are those in Congress and the Courts that have taken major liberties in the way it is interpreted. For example, the Federal government can raise monies for the purpose of national defense and the 'General Welfare of the Nation'... I'm okay with National Defense. But how does Nancy Pelosi's park in San Francisco qualify as the general welfare?

The Department of Education states on their website... 'authority is limited by the 10th Amendment'. But then it is a department of over 4,000 people and $86B budget. How is that limited?

DC is broke and we need to close the loopholes.

Expand full comment

So the same dishonest, corrupt politicians who can't manage now and are destroying the country will be the ones who go to this Convention.

How can we lose?

Expand full comment

No. That is exactly the point. The DC swamp does not participate in the Convention!

Expand full comment

Where are these participants of the highest character, integrity and intelligence to be found? And, once found, and they do their thing, the rest of the country is going to fall over themselves to accept this piece of work?

You really think so?

Want to buy a bridge?

Expand full comment

Now you are smearing all of your fellow Americans in your state? You sound like a person who just likes to trash things... you on the Left? Done unless you want to offer up any constructive alternatives.

Expand full comment

If the framers could have seen the state of education in their country in the 21st century, they would never had written Article 5.

Expand full comment

Ah, TBIMB, but that is the beauty of the Framers. They provided a means to be used by patriots to wrest back their government from the hands of those who would see us prostrate before One-World socialists.

Expand full comment

Do you really think that's what would happen? How about we work to restrain the government first?

Expand full comment

States are already doing that—dragging the fed into court for various overreaching, but we’ve always allowed them far too much overreach. Decade after decade we apathetically allowed the creation of one unconstitutional alphabet soup agency after the other. Decade after decade, we allowed unlimited spending. We allowed them to get out of control and now the corruption is far and deep and voting no longer helps. But our Founders provided a way for us to create the limits needed. And the process they provided in Article V limits the states to proposing amendments to “this” constitution and congress’ only part is to name the place and date — history shows this is done within 18mos of the 34th filing of the same application. All facts point to this being almost TOO safe. It’s far likely to produce nothing. And it 100% cannot create an entirely new constitution. The states would actually have to call for an actual Constitutional Convention to do that. Calling an Article V COS means we’re restricted to amending only… just like the 27 amendments which already exist where Congress used Article V… and still can, easier than the states can.

Expand full comment

Support the 10th Amendment Center online. They are working to promote nullification of unconstitutional federal laws.

Expand full comment

Indeed! All citizens and State legislatures should be regularly calling out any and all unconstitutional laws. State legislatures can fight anything the Fed does which impacts a state and is unconstitutional. Of course, ultimately, that relies upon the Court's interpretation in each instance. Therein lies the rub.

Notice the gray area created in this article about the 10th. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/9/21/1423418/-The-Misinterpreted-10th-Amendment-It-Doesn-t-Do-What-Many-Think-It-Does

This article also offers some historical examples of the limitations with 10th amendment more in-depth than I can in this forum: https://conventionofstates.com/news/the-10th-amendment-doesn-t-give-states-power-to-amend

Expand full comment

Yes. It is called the Declaration of Independence.

Expand full comment

Article V has been successfully used by Congress hundreds of time—27 amendments ratified by the states—the first 10 being our Bill of Rights. Now, with an out of control Fed, which includes a DOE now overreaching its authority, by far, I believe they’d be asking why we waited so long and begging us to get on with it already.

Expand full comment

And it goes to my point that Article 5 excludes the ability to change Article 9, is it? before 1808. I'd bet my bottom dollar that's the article preserving slavery until 1808 and giving slaveowners 3 votes for every 5 slaves, wasn't it? The Constitution was written to preserve slavery against the popular movement to abolish it, along with the control of merchant-bankers.

Expand full comment

It’s true, at the time, compromises had to be made in the name of remaining United. And God bless our Founders for ultimately building into Our Constitution a method for ALL people eventually becoming completely free.

Now, let’s improve it as we did with amendments 13 and 14, by adding amendments to limit our federal government’s terms, spending, and jurisdiction.

Expand full comment

I think you're misreading Article V, Ms. Corragio. I further think that the clause found in Article V was written so that the Constitution couldn't be changed by individual States and any Amendments proposed by the States could not impact the federal Constitution until 1808.

I leave it to you to interpret the psychology rationale behind Article V, but I will take it on its face and I see no mention of slavery therein.

Also, the Tree-Fifths Compromise was first introduced by James Wilson and Roger Sherman on June 11, 1787, the three-fifths compromise counted enslaved people as three-fifths of a person. This agreement meant that the Southern states got more electoral votes than if the enslaved population hadn’t been counted at all, but fewer votes than if the enslaved population had been fully counted.

The text of the compromise, found in Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution, states:

“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.”

The compromise acknowledged that slavery was a reality, but did not meaningfully address the evils of the institution. In fact, the delegates passed not only the three-fifths compromise, but also a constitutional clause that allowed enslavers to “reclaim” enslaved people who sought freedom. By characterizing them as fugitives, this clause criminalized the enslaved individuals who ran away in quest of their freedom.

Expand full comment

Hi, Richard. I just posted a YT on this called The Constitutional Convention Coup, speaking of the original one, and I'm preparing the Substack version now. When I looked up this point, I found that Article 9, parts 1 and 4, that couldn't be amended before 1808 were specifically about the 'importation of people' aka slavery until 1808 and the taxation, not to exceed $10 per head.

I have a chapter in my book that mostly talks about the Constitution but found out more, specifically about the Bill of Rights, when researching two books for this video: Constitutional Myths by Ray Raphael and What the Anti-Federalists Were For by Herbert Storing. If you're interested, here's the YT link: https://youtu.be/d5bQNtcf8sA

Expand full comment

Very interesting, Ms. Coraggio, but I did heard no mention of 'republic' or an explanation of how individual states would unite in the protection of the Union, or Confederation. Your point that the Constitution was established in order to protect the institution of slavery may be a valid one when looked at from the point of view of Massachusetts, but falls down when looked at from the point of view of South Carolina.

What you appear to lay out in your analysis is the blueprint for a loosely organized confereration of states who follow the rule of those enlightened leaders from the more populous states; i.e., Massachusetts and New York.

Tell me if I am not understanding your position.

Expand full comment

Hi, Richard. What those who fought the Revolutionary War wanted, from my research, was a federal gov't in which no one followed the rule of other states but each one was sovereign. The only war on US soil was the War of 1812, and they had no problem raising money from the states to fund the army. All the wars the US has started in foreign countries would have been unfunded under the Articles.

The Constitution did protect slavery for South Carolina, and forced the Fugitive Slave Act on the others. Even if slavery would have continued for some States under the Articles, it would have been better than encoding it as something that couldn't be changed in their founding document. Is that what you mean?

Expand full comment

When people talk about the Constitution, they usually mean the Bill of Rights, which were written by the so-called anti-Federalists who opposed the consolidation of Gov't and inversion of a true federal structure that the Constitution put in place. It was a coup against the existing gov't that was put in place after the Revolutionary War through committees of correspondence that were meeting under liberty trees. The only thing that the Constitution gave the people, in exchange for taking away their self-governance, was post offices, postal roads, and patent protection. And we can see where the latter has gotten us.

The Bill of Rights can be seen as the other side of the contract, in which gov't was handed over in exchange for these protections. Clearly that contract has been violated and therefore, invalidated. I write about this in my book, How to Dismantle an Empire.

As the 'anti-Federalist' and NY Judge, Robert Yates, wrote as 'Brutus' about the Constitution's protection of slavery: "What adds to the evil is that these states are to be permitted to continue the inhuman traffic of importing slaves until the year 1808--and for every cargo of these unhappy people, which unfeeling, unprincipled, barbarous and avaricious wretches may tear from their country, friends and tender connections and bring into those states, they are to be rewarded by having an increase of members in the general assembly."

https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607/

Expand full comment

But it enumerated the powers of the federal government and reserved all other powers to the states and to the people. Some of us read the whole Constitution, not just the Bill of Rights.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the response, Kay! The most significant power the federal gov't took was the exclusive right to coin money. What instigated the Constitutional Convention was Shay's Rebellion, where veterans were losing their farms because they couldn't pay their taxes, having not been paid for their service in the Revolutionary War. Shay and others surrounded the courthouse and wouldn't allow foreclosures until States could issue their own currency to pay back wages so they could pay the taxes. The militia was called, but sided with the farmers and veterans. So merchant-bankers hired a mercenary militia from outside and defeated them. 4000 people were offered amnesty under the condition they could never vote or run for office again.

Samuel Adams drew up the Riot Act, suspending habeas corpus and proposing execution for rebellion. Washington wrote, "Commotions of this sort, like snow-balls, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them."

If a centralized gov't issues and collects the currency, who cares what color you paint your park benches? That's the level of decision left for groups of 200,000, which was the size of the average state at the time, and the average country in the world. "Give me the power to create the currency and I care not who writes its laws" is attributed to Rothschild. The Constitution served the merchant-bankers from the start, so handing its money creation to the cartel of bankers called the Fed and its government to the Boards of corporations was bound to follow.

Expand full comment

Except that handing money creation to the feds was a direct violation of the Constitution.

I’m afraid I am unable to imagine a country in which every state has its own currency.

Expand full comment

When it was challenged as unconstitutional in court, the ruling was that "to coin" was literal, so spare change is the only thing the Treasury is legally allowed to issue--no paper, no digital credit. That's why dollars, of course, say Federal Reserve Notes. There's a workaround to that, which is the power of seigniorage, that a coin can be given any value. So the $3T Social Security Trust Fund could be turned into Treasury funds with 3 $1T platinum coins (and I'd stamp Frances Perkins, the designer of Soc Sec, on them).

That could be issued as a credit of $9K per person to the reserves of Commonwealth Banks, where it could never be withdrawn but could be given a 7% return to keep Soc Sec solvent forever. Banks can loan 10X their reserves, so every local mortgage could be bought out and reissued at 3% interest. The repayment, however, would be in a community credit. So it transfers it from a debt to the bankers to a debt to the community, repaid through local goods and services.

It doesn't replace the dollar, which is still needed for outside transactions. But it allows the community to issue monthly credits that can be used for locally produced food, wellcare, education and home improvements. And because it's not dollars, the commonwealth can make it free of all but Soc Sec taxes and set the exchange rate to protect local property and businesses from being bought out by international hedge funds.

Expand full comment

Sometimes I am amazed by the stupidity of judges. A massive failure to make distinctions.

Expand full comment

State-chartered banks create gold standard redeemable banknote currency against the value of discounted 90-day maturity commercial bills of exchange along with U.S. Dollar gold coins held in their vaults. Whether the bank is chartered in California, Texas, Maine or Alabama, the banknote currency issued is denominated in U.S. Dollars. A U.S. Dollar is defined as 1/20 of an ounce of gold by the Coinage Act of 1792. (The Federal Reserve Note is "Dollar" denominated U.S. currency, but it is not a "U.S. Dollar".)

With the existing block chain technology applied to banknote currency creation, only a very limited amount of gold coin is needed to capitalize a bank. The rest of redeemable banknote currency is supported by 90-day maturity bills of exchange that finance production to get goods to the final consumer. The final consumer pays with U.S. Dollar gold standard currency, The U.S. Dollar banknote currency thus amounts to a mere clearing operation. The contention that there could be as many as fifty different currencies is simply bogus.

Expand full comment

You're very knowledgeable, Ingo. While physical currencies were relevant to the Revolutionary War era, you probably know what percentage of US money is actual cash now. Because most people don't understand credit creation, it might be helpful to explain how banks lend money they don't have, either in capital or in deposits, for mortgages. That's the predominate way in which US money is created, yes? So the banks are the de facto owners of all homes under mortgage, without actually putting any money or value down on them to make the contract valid. Because they create the money, which is the exclusive privilege of gov't on which all others depend, could it be said that the banks are the true gov't?

Expand full comment

Which was a big problem under the Articles. And there was no ability to pay the Revolutionary War debt.

Expand full comment

Hi, Linden. In my episode on the Constitutional Convention Coup, I quote from my book on how those debts could have been denominated in US currency rather than a gold or silver backed specie, neither of which the States had (hence the debt). Like the Weimar inflation or Latin America, when debt is denominated in a foreign currency, the country has to sell off their resources or assets to get it, losing their sovereignty. If it's in their own currency, it's like borrowing against future production. It can be redeemed at the same rate that residents would pay for whatever they produce. So it strengthens their economy at the same time as paying back the debt.

Expand full comment

Agree, Naomi. I have held that we are not following/honoring the Constitution now. Con-con can only make things worse.

Expand full comment

A Convention of State Delegates under the provisions of Article V is not a Constitutional Convention. The "Convention of States" provision in Article V must be understood in light of its conception.

George Mason of Virginia, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, repeatedly attempted to have a "Bill of Rights" made part of the Constitution. He failed every time. Instead, Article V was composed to give power to the U.S. Congress to propose amendments under a Bill of Rights. Fearing that the Congress will fail to propose such amendments once the Constitution was ratified, George Mason insisted that the people must have an opportunity to propose amendments in a Convention of State Delegates as an alternative. He got his wish, and a "Convention of States" provision was added to Article V.

The 16th and 17th Amendments proposed by the Congress and inexplicably ratified by the states was heavily supported by the big money center banks in 1913.

The Constitution provided for uniform taxes throughout the U.S., Excises, Duties, Imposts, and a per-Capita Tax to be collected by the states and paid by them directly to the U.S. Treasury. The 16th Amendment gave us the graduated Income Tax instead.

The delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 argued for weeks about the representation of the sovereign states in the Congress. They finally decided that state legislatures will select two U.S. Senators each to serve for six years, unless recalled for cause. What we got with the 17th Amendment instead was a popular election of U.S. Senators in addition to popular elections of member of the U.S. House. The sovereign states no longer were represented in the Congress. Today the majority of U.S. Senators are elected with money from banks and monied interests. The 16th and 17th Amendments have totally corrupted Congress. These two amendments are directly responsible for the fact that we stand before an imminent collapse of our economy as well, as our monetary system.

Once it was made clear to Mark Levin that the Congress will never propose amendments to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, he agreed to the efficacy of calling a Convention of States to rid us of the two "unconstitutional" constitutional amendments in order to preserve the American Republic.

The application to the Congress to call the convention puts the entire process under the umbrella of the existing Constitution and does not allow a change in the Constitution, but only the proposal and ratification of amendments. A 2nd Constitutional Convention could only come about by the people who will force the sovereign states to ignore Congress and to meet in Convention to write a new Constitution. Nobody wants that.....!!! So, be aware of false propaganda......!!!

Expand full comment

Ingo, the 17th amendment was actually brought on by a call for an Article V COS by the States.

Personally, I agree it was an unwise move by the States as they gave up having any representation in Congress and I would love to see it overturned as a "bad experiment". But the truth is that by 1910, 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment allowing direct election of Senators and Congress folded to the pressure, proposing the amendment, themselves. At the time, this was done due to "perceived flaws with the existing system, specifically corruption and electoral deadlocks."

Ironic and, without a doubt, the foreseen outcome did not come to light as elitism and corruption clearly remain rampant in our Federal government.

Expand full comment

Denah, you are entirely correct about the "perceived flaws with the existing system, specifically corruption and electoral deadlocks." The "flaws", as you call them, were not only perceived they were in fact real. The "flaws" cannot be traced to the framers, however. Rather, they were introduced by the Republican Party in a congressional decision made in 1866. Let me explain.

After the end of the Civil War, southern states resumed to send representatives selected by their legislature back to Washinton, D.C. to take their seats as U.S. Senators.

Given the experience that led up to the Civil War, the Republican Party which dominated the Congress in 1866, passed a law under provision of Clause 1, Section 4, Article I of the U.S. Constitution which required that U.S. Senators be chosen by state legislators in "open" voice vote.

While it is quite understandable that passage of legislation be done by recorded voice vote, it was understood by the framers that a vote for individual office be cast in "secret". The reason for the 1866 law to require a "voice vote" by legislators to select a U.S. Senator was the desire by Republicans to gain insight into the selection process of U.S. Senators from the South.

Instead, the "voice vote" requirement of the 1866 law led to corruption and intrigue in state legislatures, specifically about decisions that involved the drawing of borders and the use of natural resources in the newly formed states of the American West. Things at times got so bad that some states even failed to send representatives to serve in the U.S. Senate.

The Progressive Movement of the early 1900s latched on to this state of affairs to push for an amendment to have greater "Democracy" through popular election of U.S. Senators.

Rogue state banks undermined the U.S. Dollar currency system, especially during the latter part of the 19th Century. This led to congressional hearings, i.e. 1911 Pujo Commission. The big money center banks tried to secure an exclusive franchise for the creation of a national currency from the Congress. They failed due to strong opposition by the states. The states supported the Federal Reserve Act instead, which was signed into law in December of 1913. Upon the failure to secure the franchise for a national currency, the big money center banks began to support the proposal for the 17th Amendment in 1912.

The FRA of 1913 began to be violated by the FRB of NY in 1920 through illegal conduct of Open Market Operations. The 1929 stock market crash and the collapse of the redeemable FRN in the early 1930s was due to the illegal OMOs started by the FRB of NY.

By 1933, all U.S. Senators were popularly elected, most of them with money from the big banks. The National Banking Acts of 1933 and 1935 turned the redeemable FRN into an irredeemable IOU supported by the Income Tax mandated by the 16th Amendment. The "legal tender" protection given the FRN by the Congress in 1965 led to the abrogation of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971, and it has been the cause of endless wars since. This set of affairs has now brought us to the imminent collapse of our economy, and the FED monetary system.

To rescue what is left of the American Republic requires the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments. The totally corrupt Congress of today will not propose the necessary amendments for a repeal.

The repeal of the "unconstitutional" 16th and 17th constitutional amendments by a Convention of State Delegates seems the only viable solution.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately, corruption is inevitable. All you can do is erect as many bulwarks against it as possible—and honest people need to rise up against it instead of shrugging their shoulders.

Expand full comment

What is called corruption is behavior driven by human nature. Humans must survive in a terrestrial environment without benefit of genetics to do so. Human instincts are based on genetics that are arboreal. In the evolution of human beings, the displacement of our arboreal ancestors from their arboreal habitat was too sudden to allow the necessary genetic changes to occur needed for adaption to life on terra firma. The fact that our hominid ancestors survived is an utter miracle. The development of human consciousness allows us to exist by performing "work". However, work is not instinctual. it must be habituated.

What is instinctual is for humans to merely "reach out and take". Our arboreal ancestors merely plucked fruit from tree branches, fruit that was then replenished by nature. The terrestrial environment was not conducive for survival by merely following arboreal instincts. Nevertheless, the instincts of "just taking" is still very much part of human behavior today. We call it stealing, or when the "elite" do it, we call it "corruption".

The French philosopher Frederick Bastiat put it this way: “Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor, by the application of his faculties to alter natural resources. This process is the origin of wealth. However, it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the work by others. This process is the origin of plunder. Now, since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain, and since work is pain in and of itself, it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work”.

Thanks to Captain Sir Thomas Dale (Jamestown, Virginia 1611 - 1619), America eventually ended up with an Anglo-Saxon legal and taxation system that champions "work". This Anglo-Saxon system is reflected in the constitutions of the several states and in the U.S. Constitution.

The ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments are an egregious violation of Anglo-Saxon law and taxation. I fervently hope that after the imminent collapse of the insanely high location values, we can return to an Anglo-Saxon taxation system, or a "single tax" as championed by Henry George.

Expand full comment

It's still a bad idea. If amending the Constitution becomes "easy" there is no end of mischief that will come about.

Expand full comment

"Easy"? COS, alone, has been working toward calling a COS since 2013 and we have 19 of the 34 needed states onboard. Even once the convention proposes amendments, we still need 38 states to ratify any amendments. There is no "easy" here. Our Founders intentionally set high bars to prevent the process from becoming "easy".

Expand full comment

What do you propose we do about the16th and17'th? He is absolutely right both stink and fly in the face of the protections left us by the Founders to prevent the mess we have now. Direct taxation was forbidden by them precisely because they feared a too strong central gov and deliberately left it strapped for funds. And sovereign states were essential in their planning. Both deep-sixed by those amendments

Expand full comment

A foundational question, I think, is whether one government over 350M people can ever support state sovereignty (or smaller, being from California myself, which is larger than most countries). My episode, linked in the subsequent comment, shows that the intent of the Constitution from the get-go was direct taxation, consolidated gov't, a standing military, empowering slaveowners, and a debt-based economy that served financiers and bankers. Taking away the 16th and 17th leaves the bankers creating the money, which is the exclusive privilege of gov't on which the ability to organize labor depends.

Expand full comment

Very helpful. Thank you.

Expand full comment

I became such an admirer of George Mason in the process of researching the episode I posted below. He was such a hero of the States and THEIR Bill of Rights, not the 'milk-and-water' Madison version. If you get a chance, let me know what you think. You have a lot more knowledge of the process than the average bear.

Expand full comment

Here is a link to an interview with Alex Newman, Sr. Editor of The New American with Patrick Woods, expert on Technocracy.https://rumble.com/v1i9vvr-article-v-con-con-could-pave-way-for-technocracy-warns-expert-patrick-wood.html. The New American www.thenewamerican.com has a print magazine and many videos. JBS - www.jbs.org has many tools to used to aid in communication with elected reps, constitution corner, and much more.

Expand full comment

The guy who exposed the Trilateral Commission back during the James Carter administration caught a sniff of what Zbigniew Brezenski, Carter's national security advisor, wrote about the Constitutional Convention. Bresenski and Kissinger favored a con-con!

Patrick Wood sounded the alarm: When he was working on a book with Stanford historian Antony Sutton about the Trilateral Commission, he found out numerous technocracy experts such as Zbigniew Brezenski were calling for just such a convention to facilitate the transition to technocracy! https://rumble.com/v1i9vvr-article-v-con-con-could-pave-way-for-technocracy-warns-expert-patrick-wood.html

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022·edited Sep 3, 2022

Each generation has had its "progressives" to deal with beginning with the strong federal government Democrat-Republican Party in 1803. History is replete with these destroyers/ignorers of the Constitution, as if it was created in wax and could be changer at their whim. Today's One-World "progressives" are no different. They are the U.S. version of the French Revolutions Jacobins and are as adept at deceiving the uneducated voter as the Jacobins deceived French peasants.

One of the current difficulties facing the MAGA movement is that for the past 60 years our educational system has been dumbing-down students and making them more and more reliant on the federal teat. Now it will be harder to wean them off federal interventionist policies. Vladimir Lenin, bastardizing Aristotle, one said, "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." What Aristotle said was, " Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man."

How few men, or women, are coming out of our public schools. This is a shame we must all bear since the education of our children is our only responsibility. But we abandoned that responsibility to the federal government. We have no one to blame for our current crisis than ourselves.

Expand full comment

Mine too. This nice Jewish aging eccentric joined last week. And was welcomed.

Check out Tulsi Gabbard’s just released video announcing her departure from the Democrat Party and the extremely well articulated laundry list of why. It’s exquisite. Our movement is growing… exponentially.

Expand full comment

I saw it. I really like Tulsi. I knew she would have to leave the Democrat Party because her core belief system is completely at odds with this new progressive party.

Expand full comment

Mark Levin is beholding to the elite class like many Right Wing Pundits, they have a millionaire or billionaire patron. Although they see value in supporting the GOP, they also feel vexed by the Constitution and ultimately hold the populous as a whole in contempt.

Expand full comment

Yes. It's "Conservative. Inc". Like all those whores at Fox who KNOW the election was stolen. and Fox's role in it, and yet, they keep acting as if everything's OK.

Puke.

Expand full comment

Levin also claimed that Ted Cruz was a natural born citizen and eligible to the presidency, when he clearly he was not. He thinks he's smarter than he is.

Expand full comment

Actually a “natural born citizen” means they have citizenship at birth. If physically being born in another nation mattered then every military brat born outside the states would have to take the citizenship test. Ted Cruz’s mother was American and Ted received his citizenship through her, at birth. That makes him a “natural born citizen”.

Expand full comment

No. Natural born citizen means being born to an American citizen on American soil. Overseas military bases count as American soil in this regard. Many of us believe that Obama is not a natural born citizen. His alleged Hawaiian birth certificate when finally produced was shown to be altered. Further, as a child he attended school in Indonesia which would’ve required his Mother to renounce American citizenship. This is the situation which was never properly resolved.

The reason for the natural born citizen requirement was to eliminate or reduce the chance of a president having conflicted loyalties. I guess we failed on that one.

Expand full comment

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

• Anyone born inside the United States *

• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

While we can debate about this until the cows come home, that is the current definition being used by our courts.

Expand full comment

What are you drinking or smoking? Ted Cruz was BORN in the USA which makes him a full citizen eligible to be president. Same for Marco Rubio.

Expand full comment
Sep 4, 2022·edited Sep 10, 2022

He was born in Canada . Do some research.. Yes, Rubio was born here, but to two Cuban immigrants who had not received US Citizenship at the time of his birth. They therefore had no US citizenship to pass to Marco.They could only pass CUBAN citizenship to him..

See retired Adm. Charles Kerchener's work. https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/ted-cruz-fails-three-legged-stool-test/

Although I hate his website layout, he does the most comprehensive treatment of the NBC question that I have seen, and he also deals with Rubio, Duckworth, Jindal, Harris, Haley, et al.

Expand full comment

Rubios parents were legal immigrants. True they did not become citizens until 4 years after he was born. However, the 14th amendment (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”) means he is a “natural born citizen” of Miami, Florida, USA.

Expand full comment
Sep 6, 2022·edited Sep 10, 2022

Nope... Until Rubios parents were fully naturalized, they had no US citizenship to pass to him.. NOW. If he had gotten naturalized, he would STILL not be a NBC.

He must have been born with both parental US citizenship (jui sangine, by blood) AND by the soil (jui soli) on which he was born.

That provision of the 14th was ONLY to be applied to freed slaves that had no determination citizenship, because they were considered under the law to be PROPERTY, not PERSONS.

It was never intended to cover "birthright citizenship".

Expand full comment

Unfortunately, Linden, that is not true. Again... read the 14th amendment. He was born with dual citizenship.

Expand full comment

That is because bright people like Mark Levin know it is an Article V Convention not a Consititutional Convention. Read Article 5 in the Constitution.

Expand full comment

My point is these things become uncontrollable once started. We think it'll go toward conservatism but there are guarantees, none at all. There is nothing wrong with our present Constitution. The problem is not the Constitution it is the declining level of character in the country.

Expand full comment

I Appreciate and value your comment! Our government is moving towards Marxism, it is already here. The character in our country has deteriorated. Article V was put into the Constitution by our Founding Fathers. It was put in at the last with discussion and all voted unanimously to include it just in case there could be in the future Government overreach and tyranny like we are experiencing today, like they fled from in Britain King George; censorship, religious persecution, and so much more, I am including info on Article V below. There is a 38 State ratification process and only 13 states to end the Article V Convention if it is out of order for any reason. And if a chosen delegate by each state legislatures strays, which I doubt, but is always a possibility as you say, character of people, they can be held for perjury and dismissed and fined and more. I am so glad you are interested to learn more. It is an exciting time in our country as Patriot can step up and still speak out about Medical Freedom and the like, but there are draconian bills that are being passed in California about giving our precious children the vaccine without parental consent and more. Please stay in touch. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Please check out www.Conventionofstates.com and take a look around. No pressure just information.

Expand full comment

For future government overreach And tyranny, invoke the Declaration of Independence.

Expand full comment

OK...find me this stellar group of people anywhere in the USA. They no longer exist.

Expand full comment

You're ignoring the fact that there are rules to Conventions of the States which have been followed for hundreds of years and that there are rules in each state which hold the commissioners faithful to the resolution or face punishment by their state and that there are rules clearly stated in Article V. You cannot ignore the rules and neither can the commissioners. If you love the Constitution, then you also love Article V which is part of our Constitution and you love the fact that we were able to utilize Article V to amend our Constitution 27 times... some of those amendments expanded freedoms. The most beautiful aspect of our Constitution is that is can be amended to form a more perfect union as we grow and evolve as a nation.

Expand full comment

Did I read that right? I can't ignore the rules? Haven't you noticed that our current administration flagrantly ignores the rules? There is absolutely nothing wrong with our present constitution. The problem is ignoring the rules.

Expand full comment

I am witnessing continual efforts by career politicians, allowed to remain in power for too long because our Constitution gives them no limits, attempting to overrun our rights and a Supreme Court which is correcting them every time they are asked to do so.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/supreme-court-strikes-down-joe-bidens-unconstitutional-vaccine-mandate-upholds-individual-choice

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/supreme-court-strikes-down-bidens-unconstitutional-eviction-power-grab

And I look forward to SCOTUS also knocking down Biden's latest attempt to exercise spending decisions he was never granted the power to exercise by We the People via our Constitution.

THAT is how I know we can END career politicians and even justices who choose to remain in seat too long and even limit seats like Fauci. Because once we place the amendments to limit our federal government's terms, spending, and jurisdiction, all the checks and balances will be properly adjusted. History shows time and again that when amendments are made, the federal government falls in line. However, the federal government will NEVER limit themselves. An Article V Convention of the States is the only way we can get this done.

Expand full comment

Elections ARE term limits. Maybe it's time to teach the public about civics, the structure of their government and educate them. The Founders never envisioned a stupid population of voters. Frankly, if the franchise was confined to those with property (which could be a business, a bank account, a house, even a job) the results would be much better. People with a stake in the game, and who pay for government through their taxes view their citizenship responsibilities in a clearer light.

Expand full comment

Sorry Ruth. You need to read some things like your constitution and understand nullification which is Article VI and is always used for states to stop any federal laws and mandates. Each state is a separate country with its' own constitution.

Expand full comment

Perhaps you need to listen to the scholars explain why they are supportive, rather than simply asking why. They all explain it with phenomenal levels of detail rooted in historical evidence. Mark Levin wrote an entire book, The Liberty Amendments.

Expand full comment

Freedom Speech, guaranteed in the First Amendment is also a guarantee of freedom of thought. I am entitled to my own opinions. While I have a great deal of respect for Mark Levin, he seems to have forgotten not all the states are conservative or conservative leaning.

It would be opening a can of worms.

Expand full comment

It would be giving commissioners from 50 states an opportunity to compromise on ways to limit the federal government, write up amendments to meet the compromised requirements, and then all but 12 states would need to agree on any and all amendments ratified… 13 states is all it will take to stop any amendment from being ratified. The real danger is that it will accomplish nothing and our federal government will continue to spiral out of control. That’s a risk worth talking to try to stop the excessive spending, unlimited career politicians, and the ever expanding overreach.

Expand full comment

Naomi - The Convention of States movement is not only supported by Mark Levin. See for yourself. https://conventionofstates.com/endorsements

Expand full comment

I know he supports it. That does not change my opinion. It would be a mistake. There is nothing wrong with the current Constitution. The problem is a lack of knowledge and respect for it, a lack of accountability, and deliberate non compliance.

Expand full comment

Our current Constitution does not limit spending which was increased without limit by Amendment #16. It also does not include limits for federal offices. At the time, term limits was hotly debated and ultimately left out. If it was a hotly debatable issue then, it is far beyond hotly debatable, now. The lack of limits on the federal governments terms and spending was not an issue in 1787, but it 100% is today.

Expand full comment

Again...all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. The Founders believed the congressmen were closest to the people and would respect and represent their interests. This is no longer the case, but it is NOT the fault of the Constitution. It is a character issue.

Expand full comment

Naomi, there was plenty of doubt as the convention ended that the new Constitution would need to be amended. Nobody thought it was a perfect document, so they unanimously voted to add the second clause of Article V. They knew there would be times such as today when the Federal government would overreach. They knew it because they understood human nature. Your argument can't be that it was a perfect document when they ended the Constitutional Convention of 1787 because you would not even be able to vote if it hadn't been amended.

Expand full comment

I have no confidence in today's representatives, the ones who would show up for a Convention. There is hardly any character, no sense of history, and little morality. How can anything good come from that?

It's not a question of a perfect document. The Founders were clearly afraid of the tyranny of the majority and built safeguards into our government to protect against that. One of those is the Electoral College. The three branches are supposed to be co-equal and to act as a check on each other. When one party controls 2 of the branches and refuses to abide by rulings from the Judiciary that go against its unconstitutional acts, it simply ignores the ruling and does it anyway. It also "shops" judges that will give it the results it wants.

The Founders never envisioned a huge, bloated, power hungry bureaucracy.

The Founders were steeped in the Bible, Greek and Roman philosophers and history in general. All of that is painfully lacking today.

Expand full comment

But Levine received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Convention of States org to promote their agenda

Expand full comment

Levin, not Levine. And provide proof, because my research found no such evidence. You can’t just make false claims. People are growing more savvy than that on social media these days.

Expand full comment

Levin has not received money from COS. About one of the only pundits that does not have to be paid to talk about COS on his show. When he wrote his book, Liberty Amendments, he did not know Meckler and Farris were working on organizing the COS project. They were independently thinking about it and then both parties discovered their mutual interest in the process

Expand full comment

Happy to provide additional info

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022Liked by Robert W Malone MD, MS

Mind blown. What little I have ever heard about the JB Society has been negative. But I find myself agreeing with this essay.

Expand full comment

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater.

Expand full comment

In your heart, you know he is right...and it turns out he was.

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022Liked by Robert W Malone MD, MS

I agree with the Late Justice Antonio Scalia “Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?” There are dark forces at work in our country at the present and it’s time to hold the line with our current constitution. Get our legislators to work on solid laws that will protect us from future overreach. Disband agencies that are no longer useful, clean house in agencies that have lost their way from the original mission, eliminate the patriot act and get the government back to working for the people. As always thank you for this thoughtful piece Dr Malone

Expand full comment

Except Anton Scalia didnt make that statement with reference to the Article V process. He was having a conversation with the interviewer about a new constituional convention . This is one of the fallacies and cherry picking that JBS and others do to create fear of the process. Scalia was a strong supporter of the Article V process. See this article https://www.termlimits.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Antonin-Scalia-on-the-Article-V-Convention.pdf

Expand full comment

when Scalia was a college professor he had his opinion about a Con-Con. When he was sworn in as a Associate Justice his opinion was "not in this century." The other associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg was sitting there next to Scalia at this televised Marvin Kalb Report interview at the 1 hour, 5 minutes and 50 seconds mark, after Ruth Bader's "jazzy" description of Scalia's style on the bench. Scalia responds to question about a convention from Seth Dawson from the office of a congressman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0utJAu_iG4 When the same question was posed to Ruth Bader, she said she would like to see the Equal Rights Amendment included at such a convention. This she said ironically as an associate Supreme Court Justice to bring equality to women, obliviously to the fact that that old lady sat on the SCOTUS! Scalia was against a convention by whatever name one wants to give it and by whatever people may want to wish such a convention to produce nothing but unicorns and happy endings, the Leftwing will not permit the conservative Right to run such a convention unless they see the convention giving the Left everything the Left wants out of such a Pandora's Box!

Expand full comment

It’s not “whatever name you wish to give it”. Legal definitions are clear. A constitutional convention as the one in 1787 was called to render the application in whatever manner necessary to preserve the union. In 1787, our Founders provided an Article V which clearly describes limited ways Congress or the States can “propose amendments to THIS constitution”. Article V not only limits the convention to proposing amendments, it sets a high bar of 2/3rds of the states requesting a convention via “THE Application” to Congress (meaning all applications much match) and those applications are where the States create limits. Read ANY Article V Application in any state which has passed and you will read about the limits called for in each application. Don’t fall for all the fear mongering. Research Article V (read it carefully and notice the precise language used to create the limits there) then go to the state legislature pages of passed states (COSA provides links to all of them on their site—directly to each state legislature) and read the resolutions. Their short and the limitations stated are clear.

Expand full comment

Denah, the state legislature only makes an application. That application is all the power given to the States by Article V. The states in 1787 tried to "create limits" but James Madison quashed those instructions that delegates brought with them to the Philadelphia Convention!

The legal precedent was established at the 1787 constitutional convention. Madison shut the door on "limits." https://jbs.org/video/constitution/lecture-5-exposing-the-enemies-of-freedom-the-constitution-is-the-solution/

A modern day convention doesn't have to abide by the ratification of 3.4th of the states either. The people running the convention, one MUST NOT FORGET, know how Madison replied to objections of the convention going way beyond the States' limited convention! https://jbs.org/video/constitution/lecture-6-restoring-the-constitution-through-effective-action-the-constitution-is-the-solution/

This is not "fear mongering" by those who see danger at a modern day convention. Look at the history of the Philadelphia Convention. A brand new Constitution was forged and then the convention changed the ratification from 13 states to 9 States!

It is not "fear mongering" but cold hard fact that today we have a J6 congressional investigation running it like a Stalin inquisition! We have a party in power trying to hang a legally elected President using every dirty trick in the enemy's arsenal to accomplish this unconstitutional act!

Madison said that the PEOPLE gave him authority to change the Article of Confederation. That precedent is the very one that those who convention whom you intimate will only be run by men and women who today are either total Marxists or total GOP milk toasts who will honor the delegates' wishes to one or two amendments!

Article V begins with "The Congress." All of the amendments congress proposed "whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution,"

The States and the people knew months and even years what the amendment was. That method is important to know. Look at the 16th and 17th amendments. Would you have voted for these two amendments if the legislature put this on the ballot? Both of these are Marxist attacks on Article IV, section four which guarantees to all the States in the Union a republican form of government!

But in the second method of adding amendments ( and thank God has not happened in 233 years!) the people and the state legislatures won't know what amendment or amendments or extreme changes to the Articles and first 10 Amendments will be made and then rushed through ratification by special conventions by-passing State Legislatures and the People!

The Convention power holders may just tell the people that they have to ratify first before they can see what they ratified. -And if the convention power holders don't get what they want they will do a "do-over" as the globalist in Europe did to Great Britain when they tried to exit the European Union!

Realize, Denah, that the entire world is about to go under and the globalists will never let a convention of states. Conference of States, all these names have been used to fool state legislators into making application for an Article V convention. Madison already put to rest this idea of a limited convention, There isn't any such animal, especially when socialists are in power.

My prayers is that we get into high gear and use the powers we have now under the Constitution and save our Republic via Article VI, Nullification and turning to the People to show them how locally we can save our country, To turn the Constitution over to Congress to set the rules and call the shots? What will that get us but more misery!

Expand full comment

Wrong. Read Professor Natelson's "The Law of Article V: State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments". Congress' ONLY role in an Article V Convention of the States is to name the time and place for the convention.

Expand full comment

Thank you for posting the link so we could hear his words on the Article V

issue.

Expand full comment

Hi Julie , did you read my reply to Mr Gonzales above. Scalia was commenting on a Constitional Convention (like 1787) nit an Artilce V convention to propose amendments. There is a HUGE difference as explained in the video https://conventionofstates.com/news/two-huge-differences-between-a-constitutional-convention-and-a-convention-of-states-video The only reason that JBS use the term CON-CON is try to conflate the two as the same thing and because they also use the arguement that the original Convention supposedly "ran away" (it didnt) to suggest the same result is possible with an Artivle V convention.

Expand full comment

Antonio Scalia. his legacy remains and we can use it as a resource for guidance.

Expand full comment

Yes, Justice Scalia said "I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. I mean , whoa! Who knows what would come out of that." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0utJAu_iG4 scroll to the 1 hour, 5 minutes and 55 seconds to hear Scalia on the convention route.

Expand full comment

I know: The dems think they did a checkmate and in some sense they did by having Kamala Harris in there as "back up" giving the former administration(s) Obama w/ his team and then what I call the Elevated Mob.. what they did. if you play chess is put Conservatives in check.. for now. I am a long time chess player and that is how I read it. The Biden admin's has temporal free reign to force the Unacceptable down the throats of the American People. The line up for the next in line is unacceptable.. that we all know. Yes. I also am familiar with Antonio Scalia's work on the bench.. actually I was not that familiar until after his death. I saw the WikiLeaks posts when posted. I was of course aware of him because GMU's law school and GMU is my alma mater and also many of our conservative AG's graduated from GMU .. which sadly . is going too woke for me. This is a phase and it will be phased out. I have seen ideology like this come and go. just lke the Ocean waves.. :)

Expand full comment

I agree with Justice Scalia about a Constitutional Convention. But an Article V COS is not a Constitutional Convention. The states can call either. But the groups calling for an Article V COS are calling to add amendments to our existing constitution. The process is limited by Article V and by the shared applications. It’s all public record. The limits are easy to read. And each state holds their commissioners loyal according to their own laws.

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022·edited Sep 3, 2022

In complete agreement, we need to clean up the mess. Until the "how-to" is resolved, be assured, we have already lost any kind of line in adhering to our Constitution. Far too many in Washington scoff at the document and ignore it on a daily basis.

Expand full comment

Excellent article by Gomez. The US federal government has seized unconstitutional power and control, and is now tyrannical, fascist, anti-Constitution, anti-Bill of Rights and anti-Rule of Law. States have ceded their constitutional rights, for a variety of reasons - ignorance of the Constitution, fear and cowardice, corruption, and dependence on the federal government for financial aid. A convention of states is one path to restoring the nation back to its constitutional track, and removing the tyranny of the federal government. However, before such a convention is called, at least 38 states must themselves be restored constitutionally - or they will replace one fascist tyranny with another. At least 38 states must have constitutional, rational people with integrity at all levels - governor, state legislature and even local levels. Only then should a CofS be called, with a constitutional agenda firmly worked out. Governors in particular are key; collectively they have more power than the president or Congress. Look at the last 3 years for proof.

Expand full comment

Whole heartedly agree. The only other answer is to fire all the career politicians in Washington both on the left and the right and replace them with citizen politicians who pledge to embrace the constitution, agree to a two-term limits and would represent the people of their state again. And when they are all installed repeal and cancel any regulations that were written by special interests for special favors and profit! That includes tearing up the IRS playbook!

Expand full comment

I agree completely. But WOW! A lot of obstacles to overcome to pull that off. But I do share your thinking, and agree this is the ideal to shoot for.

Expand full comment

So if republicans do take the house and senate and our content continues down that path ie school boards and such then we could/should make a few changs? Such as term limits, laws against lobbying and trading within the government. I am not as well spoken or educated as ll of you on this feed. I just want to make sure I am understanding where this conversation is going. 😊

Expand full comment

Kari , you will not get a good idea of where this going unless you do some research . Contitutional history , our founding and principles are not well known to the general public. I have been involved in this project for over 8 years and have learned more about the constitution and Founders than I was ever taught in school. And I still had civics class before they changed it to social studies. If you go to our website at www.conventionofstates.com/resources you can learn more about the process.

Expand full comment

There's so much that needs to be changed, so priorities have to be established. The first step is getting around 40 states to be follow the constitution. That alone will resolve a lot of current problems. This is a 10-12 year process in itself. Term limits are definitely needed. As for other changes, the best approach is to repeal and delete unconstitutional mandates, executive orders, laws and bills. This takes the US back onto its constitutional track.

Expand full comment

Joseph Kerner - This is not an excellent peice, on the contrary, this is an opinion piece written by Christian Gomez, a Research Project Manager for John Birch Society.

It is a typical JBS publication which has a lot of fluff and emotion, mostly fear, but is very short on anything new with regards to the history and details of the Article V process to amend the US Constitution. While I don’t know the specifics of his education and knowledge of constitutional law and the academic research he has completed on that subject, I suspect from the article that it is little or none.

The first page and the first 2 paragraphs are basically “fear porn and sets the stage for the rest of the article that if you support the Article V process, you are “clamoring” for a process that could do a total rewrite of our constitution and open ourselves to a loss of liberty and freedom. There are more than some conservatives calling for (rather than clamoring) for an Article V amendment convention, unless you think that 5+ million of us are the definition of “some”.

The article is full of supposed historical references from the founding era and quotes from names that many would recognize from our history. However, there is a lot of subjective conclusions being made without out a true understanding of our history of our founding, the birth of our Constitution and the Article V process. I suspect that he is like a lot of the so-called experts, associated with JBS, on the constitution that have no academic background in the subject they speak about and write about. They have never published any thesis or papers on the subject and basically just parrot what others have written and spoken.

Expand full comment

I call on the experts to tell everyone how do we balance the Powers between the States and the Federal Government that has now usurped many of the powers that belong to the states.

Expand full comment

How do you, then, explain that, while the Convention of 1787 was called specifically to amend the Articles of Confederation, we ended up with an entirely new Constitution? Shouldn’t we be operating under an amended Articles? Until we bring the federal government’s reach back within the bounds of its enumerated powers under our CURRENT Constitution, what good do new Amendments serve?

Term limits? Up to the voter. Balanced budget? Restrict the government’s authority to only those responsibilities specifically enumerated, and the House cannot appropriate funds for ANY program not specifically granted. Again, up to the voter.

“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.”

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Expand full comment

By "We the people...." the framers did not mean a mob, or the whole mass of people.

They meant groups of people that had a common purpose, and that possessed a combined "wisdom" born out of the knowledge and experience contributed by individual that led them to act.

Mobs, or huge mass of people are easily propagandized and incited to action by selfish interests because they fail to have a common purpose born out of "wisdom" expressed by a group, or crowd with a common purpose.

When you say "...it's up to the people", you have to distinguish between the actions of a crowd that expresses "wisdom", and a mob that is propagandized to act.

The popular election of U.S. Representatives is designed to express the wisdom of the crowd. The statewide popular election of U.S. Senators is designed to take advantage of mob indoctrination by special interests.

Expand full comment

If I'm understanding you correctly, I'm in complete agreement.

I think for anyone to exercise their "right to vote" (not explicitly found in the Constitution), they should have to pass some minimum standard of knowledge in history, both world and American, and an understanding of the guiding Principles on which the Constitution was based. Further, I'd restrict welfare recipients from voting as it's generally too much to ask of people to act against their immediate short term interests.

This idea of giving anyone with a pulse a right to vote is suicidal for a free society. It disenfranchises those of us that have studied history to give equal weight to the opinion of those that couldn't care less. I'm not saying that any voter, to be legitimate, has to agree with my position, just that they are able to expound on the why of theirs in a coherent and, at least partially, factual manner.

Expand full comment

As to restriction of votes cast by recipients of welfare payments that are tax dollars, I will agree with you. However, that applies only to the taxation system as intended by the original U.S. Constitution.

Before the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the taxation within states was primarily based on a "land value" taxation system modeled on Anglo-Saxon law and taxation practices. This taxation system did not diminish the value of what was taxed. To the contrary, it helped to put the use of allodial lands to the best use by holders of perpetual "fee simple" titles to real property. It actually furthered enterprise and production. Under that taxation system opportunities to "get ahead" were plentiful, and the payment of "welfare" was exclusively the province of private individuals and private organizations who looked after people disadvantaged by nature at no fault of their own.

Given the federal Income Tax and anything connected with it that causes individuals to be taxed out of their house and home (a situation most evident by homeless people under California bridges), welfare recipients' first concern is unlikely to be the ability to vote in elections. However, were they motivated to vote to preserve the receipt of their welfare payments, I will agree with your stand of denying them the vote.

BTW, when you come to think of it, the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments turned the American Republic created with the U.S. Constitution into a semi-Democracy in which now 51% of the people "vote" for a living while 49% of the people have to "work" for a living.

Maybe that is what Democrats today refer to as "our Democracy" in light of the fact that the word "Democracy" never does appear anywhere in the "Declaration of Independence", nor anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

Expand full comment

Fascinating post. IMO, it would be disaster to call a "Con-Con", as the usual suspects (WEFers, Dems, RINOs, Repubs, Neo-Cons, Pseudo-Progs, SJWs, Technazis, Corporatists, the US Admin State, the plethora of Alphabet Boyz, etc.) would control and direct it all and the outcome would be an anti-Human Schwabian TechnoHell.

Expand full comment

I'm shocked they aren't already lobbying hard for a convention now.

Expand full comment

"They" are in firm control - ignore the US Constitution - and they have no need to waste time and energy dealing with an issue that they have already bypassed.

Expand full comment

They aren't that smart

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022Liked by Robert W Malone MD, MS

I feel completely UN-represented by my current representatives. It seems far too risky to assume that would change as they write the New US Constitution...sponsored by Pfizer and Moderna.

Thanks for the very informative article!

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022Liked by Robert W Malone MD, MS

You flipped me on this.... It is indeed not the right century to do this....jh

Expand full comment

It is most definitely the right century and better yet the right decade to do this. If we don't, we won't get to the next century as the America we knew. This is what our Founders forsaw, that human nature would eventually lead our government to a tyranny of power and influence that they would not change or give up. The Article V process gives we the people the power through our local representatives, the state legislators to take our pwoer back and rein in an out of control swamp.

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022·edited Sep 3, 2022Liked by Robert W Malone MD, MS

I have learned more in the last 11 months than I have in my entire 63 years of life. Thank you Robert and Jill for providing me with much of it. I was privileged to attend that JBS meeting. Eye opening and awakening.

I think a lot of us have had a big helping of humble pie lately.

Now is definitely not the time. It’s frightening to think this could happen.

Expand full comment

Laura Kasner - I have no animosity towards JBS and most of their ideas and work, but they are totally wrong about an Article V amendment process, and you did not learn anything that comes close to the facts at that meeting with regards to the convention of states and our power to rein in an out of control federal government. I have learned a LOT of information from Dr Malone and have followed him extensively through the Covid debacle and you know why? Because I see him as an honest and respected person in his field. He understands critcal thinking, research, and training. I do not have the same feelings about JBS on this subject because I have seen lies and distortions and fear mongering about the convention of states put forth by people that have no expertise in this subject. And if someone lies about what our Founders actually said and did, well I lose trust pretty fast. I sincerly hope that Dr Malone will reach out to the Convention of States for information and truth.

Expand full comment

“because I have seen lies and distortions and fear mongering about the convention of states put forth by people that have no expertise in this subject”

I have read much of what these ‘people” have written and find their arguments logical, compelling and well cited. In contrast, the CoS has a new “Constitution” written and ready to go.

Please respond to this

https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/mark-mecklers-board-members-new-gun-controlling-constitution-1.pdf

Expand full comment

You are much like another opponent from JBS that claims that his expertise on COS is that he knows how to read. It takes more than just reading, and Publius Huldah, alias Joanne Martin is not a reliable source. Here are the facts about Robbie George. https://conventionofstates.com/news/robert-george-facts

Expand full comment

Do you have a source(s) on him that isn't affiliated with CoS? Because, that looks suspect right off the bat, to me.

Look, the logic is quite simple

It those in charge of the federal government are ignoring the limits placed on their authority now, then what purpose does placing more limits on them, that will also be ignored?

The facts are simple

Our current Constitution came about when the delegates to a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation decided, using the Declaration of Independence as their justification, to scrap the Articles altogether and write and entirely new constitution.

If you don't see that there are nefarious forces just waiting for the opportunity to destroy our country, and might very well seize on a CoS to do so, then you haven't been paying attention these past few years. Believe nothing that "experts" tell you, NOTHING.

Expand full comment

I think we just need to pass a law that says they have to follow the law. Then if they don’t do that, we will have to pass another law telling them that they must comply with the law telling them that they have to follow the law. And if that doesn’t work, will pass a………. That should do it! :)

Expand full comment

First off the logic is flawed , not simple. You are begging the question. Just because you say that they are ignoring limits placed on their authority does not necessarily mean they will ignore more limits. How will they ignore term limits? How will they ignore an amendment that calls for a flat tax? , How will they ignore, proper accounting prinicples? How will they ignore an amendment that education is not a federal function and belongs to the states.

Second the facts are not that simple. Here is the call that congress made in regards to the Philadelphia Convention. "Resolved , That in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient, that on the second Monday in May next, a convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation (and this is where most people stop and emphasize) , and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures, such alterations and provisions theirin, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the states, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the government, and the preservation of the union"

The term "exigencies" means something that requires an urgent demand. Stating that the Philadelphia convention violated the call from Congress, or they didn't understand the intent of Congress is ridiculous as 1/3 of the 55 convention delegates were sitting congressman and 18 of the signers were Congress members. Do we suggest that they didn't know the intent? Heck it was THEIR call and THEIR intent. And furthermore, a majority of the state commissions to the delegates had the same verbiage.

Here is another fact. The Phildelphia Convention was not "called" by the confederation congress, it was called by Virginia in late 1786 under their reserved powers/sovereignty. Those that oppose the Article V process claim that Congress issued the call but that is not true. Read the first sentence , Resolved , That is it the opinion of congress.....

Finally, I certainly see the nefarious forces that are trying to destroy our country and I have been studying this topic for over 8 years. History tells us that all democracies in history will end this way. But our Founders understood the nature of man and power, and gave us a way to respond to a government that is trending towards tyranny. Article V is the only non-violent way to turn this course around. I trust our Founding Father's wisdom and what they created with the help of Providence.

So, Amuzed_Traveler you can believe what you want. That's your right. For me, I believe in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, I believe in our Constitution and I believe in seeking truth, which is very difficult in these current times.

Expand full comment

First of all, Dennis, I see this as a good conversation. I appreciate that you come to this through research you have done. So have I. I've given it a lot of thought, yet, truthfully, I seek to learn / know more. Hence, as stated, this is a good conversation and I'm appreciative of the time you are taking to engage.

Everything I write in response is based on that foundation.

You write

"Just because you say that they are ignoring limits placed on their authority does not necessarily mean they will ignore more limits." For my part, I am incredulous at that statement. I think the actions taken over decades now by Congress after Congress, exceeding the limits of their enumerated powers (or, authorities) make it self evident that they will continue in the vein already established.

You write

"How will they ignore term limits?" I am opposed to term limits, actually. I think the responsibility to police the length of service for members of Congress falls directly on the shoulders of the voters. If the voters of Kentucky want to keep electing Rand Paul because no one else had come along that provides them better Constitutional representation, then they should enjoy that right. That they also keep sending McConnell back is, no doubt, a fly in that ointment, but that, I think, is reflection of big money's involvement in politics. A problem which needs addressing.

You write

"How will they ignore an amendment that calls for a flat tax?" I don't disagree with a flat tax, in principle. I'm certainly no Constitutional scholar but it seems to me that the 16th Amendment is contrary to the 4th and 5th Amendments and gives the government a priori access to a Citizen's personal information they should not have. Still, a CoS to repeal the 16th and pass an amendment for a flat tax instead. Again, an informed citizenry should be able to cause this to happen without having to resort to a CoS.

Probably shouldn't get me started on giving everyone with a pulse the "Right" to vote.

As far as the Philadelphia Convention, the text you relate about the call from Congress supports my position, in my view.

"...for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation..." I think precludes the authorization to come up with a wholly new Constitution, all the rest of the explanation you include notwithstanding.

You and someone else in the comments seem to disparage Ms. Martin's arguments against the CoS. Frankly, I find her arguments researched and her logic compelling.

Having only begun to research what Robert Natelson argues, I find in practically the first writings of his I run across, what I consider to be, a breach in logic when the first thing he states as a reason for a CoS is to reign in a government that is exceeding its current Constitutional limits on its authority. I think that goes right back to my first argument.

I'll finish up there as I have other pressing obligations for today but, again, a good and interesting conversation. Consensus lies somewhere, I'm sure, between two people that agree that this Nation is worth saving in its historical context.

Expand full comment