Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Monday, January 6, 2014

Article V Constitutional Convention - the noise is increasing


The Party Patriots are holding a symposium on the topic, here.

KrisAnne Hall discusses it here.

I have one position, it has not changed and it will not change:  Con-Con means War-War.

Period.  Full stop.

Warning to those who think this is a good idea: You are wrong.  If you manage to schedule and convene a Con-Con, I will be there and I will help to burn the entire fucking place to the ground, with as many people inside as possible.  That is not hyperbole.  I am not kidding, even a little bit.

We on the Liberty side of the equation will not even get a seat at the table.  And the people who would be in the room - I would not let them eat the corn out of my - uhm - trash.  I don't care what promises they might make going into the room, what "limits" they promise to abide. 

Con-Con is immediate, total war.

The moment they go into the room, we burn the entire fucking block to the ground.

Kerodin
III

20 comments:

  1. Wish I was closer to ground zero as I whole-heartedly agree. The scumbags entering to re-negotiate my confirmed and fought-for BoR don't give a shit about anyone of us in this country. They will be there for the banksters. "Burning down the house"- Talking Heads.

    NDV III

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lock the doors and gas the nest.
    Lewis
    III

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael Farris is a good man. Here he answers some questions today.


    http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2014/01/michael-farris-of-hslda-and-patrick.htmlhttp://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2014/01/michael-farris-of-hslda-and-patrick.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. You got it right IMO, at least in sentiment, especially the word in the title---"noise."

    I'm not sure how you jibe your position with being such a strong Constitutionalist, but I can well live my life without knowing that. Let's face it...this thing's going full freedom or it fails. No reason to imagine otherwise; tell Alan I'm sorry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JK: It's simple - the Founder's Intent regarding the Constitution and BoR have been hijacked, they have been shoved aside by Bad People who are doing unconstitutional acts.

      It is fully Constitutional for a 2A remedy to protect the Constitution when it is being abused - and a Con-Con would find the USC and BoR dismissed/overthrown by a criminal class. Using Article V in bad faith to restructure what they do not like is not an ordeal any Patriot is obligated to tolerate.

      The premise is simple: They are Bad People, abusing the Constitution, and all 3 of our founding documents give We the People the Right (I would add Obligation) to kill anyone who is trying to criminally destroy the Natural Rights articulated in those documents.

      Burn the building to the ground and salt the Earth - I will argue at my trial that my actions were Constitutional. ;)

      Delete
    2. Take my word for it...it'll be a lot better if there is no trial.

      Delete
    3. Who says they'd give you a trial? ;-)

      But for the sake of discussion (because I truly don't believe it will ever occur...not enough of the People are brave enough to gamble on leashing the government more tightly)...an Article V convention could not be used constitutionally to do anything other than draft amendments for consideration and ratification per the constitution's process of ratification. It is no different than Congress drafting ratification of amendments other than coming from the People.

      Even if the process were to be thwarted by 'ringers', all that could happen would be no amendments would be successfully drafted, and the country would be where it's at now. Everything that comes out of an Article 5 process must be ratified according to the Constitution.

      Comparisons to the Constitutional Convention in regards to the Articles of Confederation are not valid because a confederation has much more loosely tied 'strings' than a Constitutional Republic.

      If, during the Article V process, the convention drafted amendments that rescinded government limitations on natural rights, it would be unconstitutional on its face, (because you can't use specifications within a contract under consideration for amending to violate the basic contract without nullifying it) especially for any recision of the BoR or the constitution itself.

      And, if the constitution and BoR were abrogated in such manner, that itself would be just cause. However, until that occurred, an Article V convention of the People is constitutional, and one cannot violate the Constitution in order to save it. (Kind of like destroying the village in order to save it or killing the patient in order to kill the cancer.)

      Just an opinion.....

      Delete
    4. "an Article V convention of the People is constitutional"

      Great minds think alike, about the trial and this! That's what I was trying to say; your way is much clearer.

      It seems rough enough as it is; I don't see how pickin' and choosin' what to follow can possibly help. But of course, that's what the commie-lib intellectual will say too, against the "freedom lovers." We're just pickin and choosin, they'll say, as if "pickin to live" is the same as chocolate or vanilla. Right, and homosexuality is just the same as reproductive sex...get back on that in 100 years!

      Still, I don't care what anyone picks, as long as they allow the same of others. But somehow, for lots and lots of "regular people," when it comes time to REALLY pick, to do something they want to do, suddenly it's fees and permits and taxes...licenses, regs, codes, inspections, mandatory insurance and on and on. The madness alone makes you not want to do it, even if you could. And the point of it all was...what, again?

      You can't deny it...the Constitution has been in effect throughout all of this. It's nice to discuss, "They don't do it as intended," which is the understatement of the millennium...but so what? Even agreed that it's the best document ever, which it ain't, why should some piece of paper control any person's life? Even if the community should be a higher value than the individual (which is wrong IMO, but no matter), that STILL doesn't tell us why a piece of paper should rule. It hasn't made the community any better, has it?

      The premise has always been that in the absence of some sort of Rule, ideally Rule of Law, then people will always deal with each other as thugs.

      That premise can use some serious checking.

      Delete
  5. the con-con effort is already stacked with anti-everything-personal- freedom scumbags.... it will have the same category of fail as did my local Tea Party several years ago... ours was seeded with republicrat progressives whose chant from day one was give some to get some - which = give up as much as is demanded and get screwed during and after... it was and still is a fail of epic proportion and a con-con will super-size that exponentially and permanently...

    no - no con-con ever in this country - not without our guns to the heads of those in the room to keep it on track for rightful liberty... and we all know that guns will be the first thing banned from the room and for the obvious reason stated...liberty was gained, as last resort, by the barrel of a gun and so it may well again...

    don't anyone get your lacey panties all up in a wad - I AM NOT advocating for a civil war but those of you naive enough to believe that the liberty thieves would honor the cause of liberty(or those representing it) are just that: naive and the result would have to be conflict of horrific proportion...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "not without our guns to the heads of those in the room to keep it on track for rightful liberty"

      See...there's a fresh idea right there! OTOH if you gotta do that, then why bother with it in the first place?

      Delete
  6. I attended an inauguration last night and found it funny that they swear against violent overthrow of the government. I believe violence should be included in the oath in cases where the Constitution is gutted to the point where it's just a shell and those who could peacefully remedy the situation refuse to do so. Our government representatives should lead the charge to have it reinstated by any means necessary, up to and including violence. I guess one revolution is all we needed and everything was created just peachy keen. There's no possibility that things could go wrong in the future. Might as well create an oath and make violence illegal in the future!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Madison was absolutely petrified of this method and understood the complications and ramifications should it be initiated.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rather than wait until they are all in a big hall or convention center with security all about; Instead ask where do the leaders and organizers sleep tonight. A stitch in time saves nine.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'll start by saying I'm an Article V proponent. I'll follow up by saying that I am an NRA Life Member, and a devout Constitutionalist. I'm an Article V proponent precisely because this government has long ignored the Constitution, relying on tricks of interpretation (i.e. of the Commerce Clause) and manipulation to vastly expand their powers beyond what the Tenth Amendment permits.

    A con-con isn't actually a con-con--the Constitution doesn't authorize a con-con. What it does authorize is a convention to propose Amendments. It's just another way of proposing Amendments, the same as Congress does, except better situated to correct the rot in Washington. An actual con-con would be unconstitutional, and I would fight against that just as well. I don't want the BoR abolished--I want it reinforced with iron teeth. I want measures that make it much harder for the federal government to sidestep their Constitutionally defined obligations and restrictions.

    Above all, bear in mind that any amendment that comes from a convention must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, else it never sees the light of day, just as the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated without ratification.

    Anyone who wants to kill me for wanting to preserve our Constitution is welcome to try, but I'd rather have a beer with you and explain why I think what I think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon: If an Article V Convention happens, are you sanguine, on any level, that the result would strengthen the Constitution? You know the people who will be in the room, you also know those people despise the Constitutional limits. The very few people who are intellectually capable and well-known enough to be in the room, such as Pat Buchanan, Walter Williams, would never get a seat at the table.

      On top of all that, given the reality of our ignorant, low-information, uneducated public (and their equally inept state legislators), when the Convention doors open and the people who were inside announce they have reached agreement on many topics that you and I know are beyond the scope of their authority, the average American and the average state legislator will buy-in.

      It is a rigged game that will only remove some of the moral authority of the Constitution we currently have.

      Delete
    2. There are two stages: the first is the convention, the second is the ratification process. I'm perfectly confident that most of the Amendments proposed would serve to strengthen the Constitution for the simple fact that most of the Amendments proposed are those which Congress will never propose (e.g. Term Limits, Spending Limits, and Debt Relief).

      I'm confident because the same political realities that keep us from going full on North Korea will keep convention delegates (whether appointed or elected) from proposing anything too radical. That doesn't mean some won't try, but they'll be sidelined the same way members of Congress do.

      I recognize that some of the proposals in the convention would serve to weaken the Constitution--and if I were fortunate enough to be present, I'd argue in the most vehement terms against any such measures. But even if I'm drowned out and a convention proposed an Amendment to strip our Second Amendment rights (for instance), that has to get past 38 states to be ratified. That will never happen. I'm assured of that based on Congress's latest attempts to repeal the Second Amendment, with proposals from the likes of Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein. The federal government is more likely to propose and pass an Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment than a Convention and 38 States are. If they can't do it, then neither could a Convention.

      That's really what this boils down to. The theoretical danger that a Convention presents pales to the real danger that the federal government already presents. The enemies of the Constitution don't need a Convention because they already have a federal government which ignores the Constitution to the greatest extent that it can get away with.

      Delete
  10. INSTEAD OF THREATENING TO KILL PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO FIX OUR DISFUNCTIONAL NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, WHY DON'T YOU GO TO WWW.CONVENTIONUSA.ORG AND SIGN UP AS A DELEGATE. WE NEED 6,163 PATRIOTS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Brennan: Would you insist that the Convention repeal all gun laws on the books, or would you find some - like for felons and domestic violence guys - are reasonable restrictions?

      Would you insist that Social Security, ObamaCare, Medicare, Medicaid be cut entirely and immediately from the budget?

      Would you insist the 16th Amendment be repealed in its entirety and that no replacement such as a "carbon" or "use" tax be put in place?

      Delete
  11. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS DON'T ENACT OR REPEAL LAWS. THEY DEAL WITH THE HOW AND THE WHO OF GOVERNMENT. THE FOUNDERS INTENDED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO GROW WITH THE POPULATION. WE HAVE BEEN STUCK ON 435 CONGRESSMEN FOR 100 YEARS. THE 16TH AMENDMENT CERTAINLY SHOULD BE ON THE AGENDA. BUT THE DELEGATES WILL SET THE AGENDA. THEY ALL REGULAR FOLKS SUCH AS WOULD BE CALLED TO JURY SERVICE. THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR FROM THE CONVENTION UNLESS YOU ARE AFRAID OF YOUR NEIGHBORS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas: I do fear my neighbors - not a single one is Jeffersonian and I trust none of them to enter a room on my behalf to start tinkering with the Constitution, even through the amendment process.

      Delete

Please post anonymously and include your recognized online handle in the body of the comment.