It's Time To Call a Convention of States
I am not sure that any of us can predict what set of circumstances must appear before calling a convention of states. It is part of our Constitution, Article 5. In the past, Congress has somewhat routinely used Article 5 to propose and adopt constitutional amendments. However, there is also a provision which allows state legislatures to circumvent Congress. That is a convention of state legislatures. Incidentally, I believe it is the only way possible to impose term limits on Congress since there is virtually no chance they will ever impose term limits on themselves.
The recently stolen election and the obstruction of any kind of investigation or quest for an accurate vote tally is the last straw. We already possess a Congress with the worst ratings in history. We have a SCOTUS that simply cherry picks what it wants to hear and what it doesn't want to hear and offers some weak excuse when deciding which cases they will find entertaining. Wouldn't any one of us love to dodge every tough call or hot button issue knowing that our careers cannot be jeopardized? Our system of governance no longer represents "we the people" if it ever did. We can either intervene and attempt to stop this self serving behavior and make government accountable to us or we can continue to ignore it until we are faced with some variation of mob rule democracy, corruption, ridicule, and ruin.
“On the final day of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when our Constitution was adopted, Americans gathered on the steps of Independence Hall to await the news of the government our founders had crafted. They asked Benjamin Franklin, ‘What do we have, a republic or a monarchy?’ Franklin replied, ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’
Article 5 of the Constitution allows for a convention of state legislatures by a 2/3rds majority of states. The passage of any proposed amendment requires a 3/4 majority vote. It most certainly would have to be called by state legislatures. Drunk with power and terms that go on for decades, Congress no longer serves the people. It serves corporate America with their shills and lobbyists. Congressmen serve whoever promises the fattest campaign re-election checks. Term limits would have to have the highest priority with one very notable exception. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and amendments must stay intact. Nothing gets removed or deleted. The convention of states' work is purely additive.
There are many people, scholars and people far more knowledgeable than I, who think that once the convention is called- everything is on the table to include removing the Constitution. This can never happen. The Constitution is the lifeblood and history of America. However, I think it would be unrealistic not to admit that after 240 years worth of industrial expansion worldwide, immigration and population growth, and the general evolution of our culture- at some point we have to be willing to bring the outhouse indoors and change the plumbing. Our government needs some updates and remodeling.
There are many items to address. Term limits, campaign reform to include making lobbyists and bribes in the form of contributions and cushy jobs for family members- illegal.
The Federal Reserve "Bank" and this ridiculous 28 trillion in debt which is never going to be repaid. That must be addressed along with a return to sound money.
This insane idea that we must carry on wars, wasting trillions and costing thousands of lives. The military complex in this country is a money sucking curse. I am sick of using our kids as cannon fodder so that we can continue killing and blowing things up in the name of whatever excuse is politically expedient. Self defense? Absolutely. Picking fights? Absolutely not. Our wars even need term limits.
We need to tackle health care. The ACA was nothing but a health insurance bail out. In it's present form, where absolutely nothing was reformed, it is the worst piece of legislation ever foisted on the American public.
Elections. Good gawd. Can't we agree on one process in 50 states wherein everything is processed quickly and can easily be checked for accuracy? Is this some impossibility on par with colonizing Jupiter? Must we be ridiculed when we want to check accuracy?
I am also weary of our judicial system particularly at the upper echelons. I am tired of watching SCOTUS time and time again consistently vote for more government over reach. I am tired of watching the high court pick and choose what they will hear and what they won't. It's time to write a job description for these people to adhere to. While campaigning for the Affordable Care Act and lying to the country about health insurance premiums going "down" accompanied by a 2000 page bill no Congressman bothered reading- the democrats foisted this unread monstrosity with penalties on middle class America. Obama never, ever, referred to the Affordable Care Act as a tax. He chose his words very carefully. Our last hope was SCOTUS. Justice Roberts, knowing there would be no appeal of his tie breaking vote, and certainly not concerned with job loss or even a reprimand, cast his vote for the ACA and justified his decision by calling the bill a tax. That was the last straw. They conned and lied to us to sell this terrible bill and then called it a tax at the SCOTUS level to justify it's passing. The errors, omissions, and outright fraud used to pass the ACA should have rendered it dead on arrival. Five justices voted for that garbage.
That was the day I learned to hate SCOTUS. I realized that they could justify any position that they wanted. I'd already seen the Citizen's United decision where they rationalized that limiting corporate funding of campaign ads somehow violated the First Amendment which was a ridiculous stretch of imagination. Al Capone was a piker compared to these thieves. Al never had the benefit of some ruling body sanctioning his deeds.
These are just a few issues. I'm sure we can think of many more items from pandemic response to installing budget limits and deadlines that will be published and enforced. No longer playing kickball with budget deadlines and the accompanying political nonsense.
For years I have read a constitutional scholar who is very adamant that she does not want a convention of states fearing that they will destroy the Constitution in the process. I have agreed with her up until this latest election fiasco. If we have no process of safeguarding a system and seeking the truth in something as simple as counting and verifying votes then we have no business pretending we have a republic where the rule of law is subjugated by political parties and petty tyrants in every state. People can't even cast a ballot without fearing they are wasting time and thus, will simply quit voting altogether.
One last thing for folks to consider. If we wait 10 years- the mob rule liberals will have an even larger stranglehold on the states than they already have. We employ due process, negotiation, and revision. That is the fair, peaceful way to resolve conflict. We have a rule of law in America. JFK once said, "Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try." Kennedy also said, "Those who make peaceful resolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable." If plan A fails, then it's time for plan B.
It's time we remove our consent to be governed.
If we don't bring about an intervention with serious changes now- then all that remains is mob rule democracy with it's associated chaos, rigged elections, repressed first and second amendment rights, illegal seizures, bad rulings, and more government enslavement. The founders included Article 5 for a reason. Things change. This is how you keep a republic.
Breaking news 12/19. Attorney Lin Wood calling Justice Roberts corrupt.
Comments
I've been saying this since The Patriot Act...
And 36 States? I can't even think of 14 States I'd trust. Maybe 3 or 4.
As the Founder once said, a Republic is suitable only for a moral people.
"Without humility and a sincere desire and willingness to consider, to think, to ponder, and to question what we already believe to be true then we will be barred if not imprisoned in our own thinking." I've read that constitutionalist you liked and guess what Brian, she's full of shit..
That word believe means you think you know something and has nothing to do with knowing anything.. Research it!
[Sylvester, supra note 55, at 67; see also Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law, 42 VAND. L. REV. 819, 823 (1989) (“In ascertaining principles of the law of nations, lawyers and judges of that era relied heavily on continental treatise writers, Vattel being the most often consulted by Americans. An essential part of a sound legal education consisted of reading Vattel, Grotius, Pufendorf, and Burlamaqui, among others.”).]
Remember when two witnesses testimonies was good enough to put anyone in jail? Well that Supreme Court along with countless lower courts have ruled numerous times that the citizen is not a party to that COTUS… It's a private contract and the average man is not a party to it…
“But indeed, no person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact (contract), but he is not a party to it. The States are a party to it…”. [Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854)]
"We the People" pertains primarily to the signatories, a deal they all went in on together. The United States of America is a British plantation formerly referred to as the American Colonies. Their reason for doing this was to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves (meaning them, the signatories) and our Posterity. (meaning their Posterity, their offspring) Posterity, all the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest gen POSTHUMOUS CHILD 920 POTENTIAL eration. [Breckinridge v. Denny, 8 Bush (Ky.) 027] When they use capitalization it changes the meaning of a word. That capitonym, that Capital "P" in Posterity, it's for emphasis. It’s a “direct line” to a proper noun, a direct descendant, because in the language procedure if the signatories capitalize the first letter in the middle of a sentence like that, then they are not referring the general definition. They can’t be, which only leaves what remains, a Bloodline.
Go ask Robert Elgee to explain it to you.. because he knows…
If you wanted a legit reset the first thing you better eliminate is the BULLSHIT by academiac intellectual IDIOTS…
But here's where you and I take different roads. You were born into this and like it or not- that's the way it is. You can sqwauk and scream intellectual bullshit all you want but nobody recognizes it nor does anyone care.
All that is left for you to do- is recognize your chains and accept that. The world has moved on.
I accept where we are at. I accept that I cannot jump into a time machine and go back and change things. I'm ok with that. Recognize who you are- and realize you are the last line in your comment. Self taught no doubt- but I don't see much difference.
Years ago, I learned to live within the process. Within the rule of law. It doesn't matter whether I like it or not- I'm not in charge of changing it. Therefore I work to create little brushfires in the minds of men. Right here.I don't have to ask permission or beg forgiveness. I don't give a fuck whether someone disagrees- it's the people who agree that I want to reach.
The world is full of sheep and wolves. I'm just trying to reach the sheep dogs. Capiche?
I hear a lot of false bravado short of a 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse and a few skirmish lines here and there- all this bravado is just so much bullshit. People aren't willing to go to prison or to get killed until they have nothing left to lose.
We are a long way from there. However, I believe Joe Biden and President Harris will push people over the edge. Most people have no idea just how radical and ugly those two are- but they are going to find out in chop chop fashion. When people realize as I did after the Obamacare fiasco- that they are about to lose everything and that the courts don't give two shits about "we the people" and begin taking what little they have left..
This process will go into warp drive.
Acknowledging the Universal International Right of Self-Determination, from the USA's own State Department:
"7 FAM 1280
LOSS OF NATIONALITY AND TAKING UP A POSITION IN A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
7 FAM 1281 INTRODUCTION
(CT:CON-285; 03-06-2009)
a. This subchapter addresses the subject of development of loss-of-nationality cases involving persons who:
(1) Have accepted, are serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof;
(2) Have attained the age of 18; and
(3) Have the nationality of the foreign state or have taken an oath of allegiance to the foreign state.
b. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot lose U.S. nationality unless he or she voluntarily and intentionally relinquishes that status (Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)). The Supreme Court underscored in Vance v. Terrazas that “expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than the will of Congress,” and the Department gives great weight to the expressed intent of the individual. However, the Terrazas Court also recognized that intent may be “expressed in words or found as a fair inference from proved conduct,” and the Department has taken the view that actions inherently inconsistent with allegiance to the United States may be more probative than words. See 7 FAM 1285 for a fuller discussion of the subject.
c. The presumption stated in 7 FAM 1222, paragraph a, found in 22 CFR 50.40, that a U.S. citizen/noncitizen national intends to retain U.S. nationality applies when he or she accepts nonpolicy level employment in the government of a foreign state. (See 7 FAM 1285 for a discussion on what constitutes a policy-level position which the Department now construes as meaning a head of a foreign state.)
d. If a consular officer becomes aware that a U.S. citizen/noncitizen national accepted a nonpolicy-level position in the government of a foreign state and the individual does not advise you that his or her intent was to relinquish U.S. nationality, the administrative presumption of intent to retain citizenship applies. You should:
(1) See 7 FAM Exhibit 1223 and prepare the Consular Officer Attestation of Non-Loss;
(2) Enter case in ACS System; and
(3) Send attestation to Passport Records for filing attached to Form DS-11, Application for a U.S. Passport, Form DS-82, Application for a U.S. Passport by Mail, or Form DS-4085, Application for Additional Visa Pages, or other passport service. If the person is not applying for a passport, use Form DS-4085, which has been modified for this sort of purpose.
e. If the person indicates that he or she did intend to relinquish U.S. nationality in accepting a nonpolicy-level position in the government of a foreign state, follow the procedures outlined in 7 FAM 1220 for development of a loss-of-nationality case.
f. The presumption of intent to retain nationality is not applicable to a policy-level job, but that said, the intent to relinquish nationality must always be established, including for a foreign government policy-level position. Much depends on the nature of the position. Many policy-level jobs involve relatively mundane duties, e.g., health, education, etc., which do not have implications for allegiance. Additionally, even higher-level positions with a foreign government may not be inconsistent with loyalty to the United States. In Vance v. Terrazas, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that intent can be expressed “in words or found as a fair inference from conduct.” (See 7 FAM 1285 for a discussion of the Department position that for the purposes of INA 349(a)(4) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(4)) a policy level position constitutes a head of a foreign state.) Development of a loss of nationality for a person in such a position is explained in 7 FAM 1286.
***7 FAM 1283 POSITION IN THE GOVERNMENT OF A FOREIGN STATE, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OR POLITICAL ARM OF A PARAMILITARY ORGANIZATION
b. Unrecognized state: Employment with a foreign state whose government is not recognized by the United States comes within the scope of INA 349(a)(4), provided that the state satisfies the recognized elements for statehood. The existence, in fact, of a new state or a new government is not dependent upon its recognition by other states.***" — https://fam.state.gov/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1280.html#M1283
56. 56 out of 2+ million.
Those 56 men knew that the Parliament was not going to give them what they wanted, so they engaged in their Universal International Right of Self-Determination and formed an entirely new identity: American; and Constituted a form of government: Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union; reconstituting that government into another form when their confederacy failed: the Constitution for the United States of America.
Those 56 men did not try to change England; they made the choice to change themselves and step out from under their political bondage to assume their separate and equal station among the powers of the earth as Nature and Nature's God entitle them."
Those 56 men are 'The People'.
"Freedom is acquired through the direct act of Self-Government. Self-Government is proven to the world through establishing a Status (State) by contract. That contract is called many names: Articles for Government; Constitution; Compact of Government; Covenant of Social Association; Articles of Perpetual Union. And even more synonyms. As long as the contract lays out a "form of government" that establishes a State Body with the Authority and Power to create standards (laws) for the people in contract, the act of Self-Governance is self evident and a Peoples have effectuate their Self-Determination under the Customs of Humankind. Contract standards under "Natural Law" illuminate that a People wanting Self-Governance have to create an entirely new Contract For Government. They cannot use Contracts for Government that are already in existence and already executed by "The People" of the State that drafted and executed that contract."---Great Basin Self Determination Project
AND; assuming one can change someones political charter is essentially caused by a political myth… A deception.. Politics being the ancient art of deception..
U.S. Jobless rate May Soar to 30%, Feds Bullard Say's
“This is a planned, organized partial shutdown of the U.S. economy in the second quarter"
James Bullard, St. Louis Treasury
March 2020, First Quarter
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-03-22/fed-s-bullard-says-u-s-jobless-rate-may-soar-to-30-in-2q?fbclid=IwAR0m5VOPsYBlkob0RF83LOLb7Yy_yzVKYb5I40nqMmQw-_rWdiv_nfPculs
The basis of MMT is the issuance of vast currency in times of economic despair- and then removing excess capital as economies begin to produce via Larger taxes. It is a wonderful thoery that as I researched might have worked but for two very huge problems. Manipulating the amount of currency in circulation is what we have been doing since 1913- there was no reason to think given the scandalous FED RESERVE that anything was going to change once some sort of MMT was installed. Politicians would continue to over spend and the FED would simply extend that unlimitless amount of credit. The system would have to be reformed and the FED in it's present form, removed.
The second and most salient point I raised was you can't employ MMT when you are already 26 trillion in the hole. In other words, you can't simply change the rules until you address that level of debt and zero it out. I didn't even make it that far before Webber and her all knowing squad gave me the boot.
Which to your point I arrive. If we plan for pandemics- we might even have a reserve amount of capital to unleash for emergencies. But since we are already 27 trillion in the hole- what's a few trillion more? The planned shutdown of the economy occurred in the last quarter, first quarter of the 2019-2020 fiscal year. Not lost on me was the overnight repo rates which were soaring, and then suddenly and concidentally- one year before the election covid was unleashed on the world. Other countries spy agencies said that the coronavirus lab in Wuhan went dark for a period of 2-3 weeks in October 2019. Not one phone call or light switch got turned on while the mess was being cleaned up.
Who benefits when our economy shuts down? Central and member bankers, a Trump hating China, and the US deep state government, seeking two stooges for office.
I always hated coincidences. They just don't happen to the degree that most people believe. Shutting down our overheated economy fueled with cheap money was job one to get rid of Trump. Our own CIA has been manipulating politics in countries all over the world for decades- maybe it was just our turn to get played.
The Right of Self-Determination is about Self-governing. It is a choice and that choice was succinctly stated by Theodore Roosevelt in the Jamestown Exposition on April 26, 1907; when he said: "It behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves, then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside."; The question is governed how or by whom? As subject-citizen-debtor-slaves they must submit. Continuing he further states, "They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing that they possess the power of government from within, a sovereign can not make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of the power that inheres in him, and where, as is true in our Republic, the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober understanding and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest."
The principle comes to this. You can play these games inside their Ponzi-scheme and pretend you have rights and pretend your vote counts. Or, you can step up to the big leagues, dig your heels in, and learn international law where real sovereign rights are obtained. “Come together with others of goodwill and like mind” to exercise the Right of Self Determination. So that the liability and karmic debt of the equitable fraud which has been allowed to precipitate no longer sticks to you. Under the Doctrine of E Pluribus Unum and the Doctrine of Particeps Criminis, if you are One, out of the Many (and you are...), you are judged equally naked as such. All crimes, all injustices, all inequities, all unrighteousness committed by the Head on behalf of the Many, binds the Many wWho are all in collusion with one another as partners in crime.
Joseph Philips
You will never find the word Jural Society in a word dictionary. You will find Jural. But the enemy switches words Against the Grain and terms to get you where he wants you to be, and that is to lose any legal setting, be it court or on paper from any agency. Such as the Case of RESPUBLICA v. SWEERS. Yes, RESPUBLICA was the Corporation of the United States suing Mr. Sweers in 1799, and the very first words of the court were, “ THE UNITED STATES
BECAME A BODY CORPORATE FROM THE PERIOD OF THEIR ASSOCIATION.” ---THE MYTH AND THE REALITY---WELL THAT ASSOCIATION WAS DURING THE 1783 - 1791 TIME PERIOD…
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/41/
“But indeed, no person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breech of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact (contract), but he is not a party to it. The States are a party to it…” (emphasis added). [Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854)]
https://www.scribd.com/doc/14566693/Padelford-Fay-Co-vs-The-Mayor-and-Alderman-of-the-City-of-Savannah
“The People” does not include you and me. “The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests.” [Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243]
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/
LMAO..