False Friends of an Article V Convention Are Legalizing the Fed’s Usurpation of Power, Not Limiting It
The Rightful Remedy Conference took place on Saturday, March 28, 2015 on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Several speakers on a wide variety of topics conveyed their thoughts on issues from America’s heritage to Constitutional Sheriffs to the issue of an Article V convention. It is on the latter matter that Publius Huldah spoke and was, in this writer’s opinion, the most passionate about the information she provided.
“We’re at the fork in the road,” she began. “Should we push for an Article V convention or should we do what our framers advised when the federal government usurps power?”
Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?
Sadly, many on both sides of the issue of an Article V convention don’t know the difference in what she is asking, but Publius took the time to distinguish and expose those she calls “false friends.”
“Alexander Hamilton warned that most men who overturned the liberties of most republics began by paying obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants,” she added. “That is happening today. False friends, demagogues, demanding a convention where they can improve this Constitution by amendments while they actually scheme to increase government power over us by rewriting our Constitution.”
Of course, on the other side is George Soros and his team of Marxists desire a Marxist-style constitution to be substituted for the current Constitution by the year 2020.
PH labels those on the “phony right” and the left as “change agents” and claims that before they can get what they want, “they need a convention.” The reason for a convention is because, according to PH, “a new constitution can only be introduced at a convention.”
“False friends are not being truthful,” she warned. “But I will show you the truth.”
Article V provides two methods of amending the Constitution. Either Congress proposes amendments or Congress calls a convention to propose amendments, if 34 states apply for such a convention. The first method was used for our existing 27 amendments. Congress proposed each one of them. As for the second method, America has never had a convention under Article V, but we did have a convention under the Articles of Confederation, America’s first constitution, which ignored the amendment ratification process, under the AOC, in favor of a new method of an entirely new constitution.
However, PH points out, “When we ratified the Constitution, we created the federal government. It is a federation of sovereign states (countries), united under a national government only for those limited purposes itemized in the Constitution, with all other powers reserved by the states and the people.”
The listed powers given to the federal government over the country are listed in Article I, Section 8, clauses 1-16. Only four categories are actually authorized by the Constitution for the federal government. Within those categories are the only things the federal government has been authorized to do:
- Military defense
- International commerce and relations
- Immigration and naturalization
- Domestically create a uniform commercial system
- Weights and measures
- Patents and copyrights
- Money system based on gold and silver
- Bankruptcy law
- Mail Delivery
- Some road building
- And with some amendments, they are to secure certain civil rights
That’s it! That’s all they are supposed to be doing, which isn’t much, but they are doing far more!
“If it is on the list, Congress may make laws about it,” PH declared. “But if it’s not on the list, Congress usurps power and adds unlawfully when it interferes.”
Since there are less than two dozen powers delegated to the federal government, most people could live their lives and very seldom encounter the federal government if we followed the guidelines of the Constitution.
So why is America becoming more totalitarian? According to PH, it’s because neither the people nor those they elect know what the Constitution says and, therefore, neither of them have sought to enforce it.
“We stopped reading our Declaration and Constitution, and because we didn’t know what they said, we were unable to do our duty to vet, monitor and discipline our public servants,” she said. “We allowed our servants to bribe us into surrendering our liberties.”
PH went on to list numerous federal programs in which the states and the peoples handed over their liberties to the federal government rather than retain them.
From here she began to expose those she calls “false friends.”
“False friends exploit our ignorance when they tell us amendments can limit the powers of the federal government,” she warned. “But when people learn the short list of delegated powers, they can’t be deceived by false friends who tell them that the remedy for a federal government, which has seized thousands of powers that are not on the list, is to amend the Constitution.”
“Think,” she said. “When the feds seize powers that are not on the list, what part of the Constitution do you amend to fix that? Do we need an amendment to say that feds can’t do things which aren’t on the list? We already did that! It’s called the Tenth Amendment and they ignore the Tenth Amendment!”
However, PH was not to speak without mentioning names. “Mark Levin, Michael Farris and Rob Natelson of the so-called ‘Convention of States Project’ insist the problem is the Constitution. They say the solution is to change the Constitution.”
“Yes, even though we abandoned the Constitution over one hundred years ago and have no standard but our own opinions, all we need to do is change the Constitution and that will fix everything,” she sarcastically declared.
While men like Farris and Levin say that amendments will limit the scope and power of the federal government, doesn’t the Constitution already do that? Isn’t the problem with men that don’t follow those limits rather than with the actual limits themselves? How can amendments limit these men from doing the thousands of things they are already limited from doing, but are doing anyway?
As an example, PH used the use of arms to prove her point.
“Look at guns,” she explained. “Our Constitution doesn’t delegate to the feds power to regulate guns, gun sales, ammunition, firearm dealers and do background checks, but they do it anyway. So, let’s pass an amendment saying they can’t do any of this. But we already did that. It’s the Second Amendment, but they ignore the Second Amendment!”
“So the claim of these ‘false friends’ that we can control the feds, who ignore the Constitution, by changing the Constitution, is so absurd they cannot possibly believe it,” she concluded.
She then declared, “They have a hidden agenda in agitating for a convention, and from the absurdity of this claim and the falsity of their other claims, we may infer an evil intent.”
PH then said, “We know that Levin and Farris don’t want to limit the power of federal government because the amendments they propose legalize powers the feds have already usurped.”
She then listed three of the amendments advanced that do just that.
- Parental Rights Amendment
- Levin’s amendments would legalize unconstitutional agencies for as long as Congress authorizes them, like: Education, Energy, Agriculture, EPA, HUD, DHS, HHS, ATF, etc., etc., etc. (These aren’t on the list in the Constitution)
- Levin’s amendment to limit federal spending is also phony. The Constitution already limits spending to the enumerate powers. His legalizes unconstitutional spending via a budget.
Though Article I, Section I of the US Constitution authorizes Congress to make limited laws under enumerated powers, but since Woodrow Wilson, federal agencies have been, in essence writing their own codes and regulations independent of Congress, and every one of them is outside the scope of the federal constitution. In fact, they are not only outside of the Constitution, they are in violation of it! The same thing is true of spending.
PH then warned, “Don’t go by the names of the amendments. They are chosen to deceive you!… They’re amendments institutionalize the very institutions they purport to correct.”
“Even though our Constitution is not being enforced, it still declares this federal government lawless,” she thundered. “The rule of law is still on our side, but not for long if we foolishly allow our Constitution to be replaced.”
PH then recounted the fact that these “false friends” tried to get an Article V convention for fifty years, but they were stopped. Now, according to PH, these groups and individuals, like the ACLU, have repacked themselves to appeal to American patriots in order to market it as an issue of states’ rights.
However, as she previously pointed out, the states sold out their rights and the rights of the people for federal money.
“State governments are not victims of federal tyranny,” she said. “State governments are enthusiastic participants in federal tyranny.”
“We must stop electing people to office who have their hands out for federal money,” she added. “There’s no such thing as something for nothing. With federal money comes federal control.”
She then went on to elaborate on how “false friends” came up with the ridiculous notion that the framers believed that the way to rein in the feds was via amendments to the Constitution.
“Our framers never said that when the feds ignore the constitution, the remedy is to change the Constitution,” she said.
While I know that this particular article is getting a bit long, consider that this is only about halfway through her presentation and it is well worth your listening to, whether you are for an Article V convention or against it. As I have stated previously, I believe there are well-meaning patriots who are seeking to do something to stop the tyranny we are experiencing, but there are also “false friends” who either know better or should know better regarding an Article V convention. Sadly, many are being led astray on this particular issue.
I care not for what title’s men wear nor their various accolades by neo-conservatives and media whores. The issue on this matter is whether or not the warnings against an Article V convention are warranted or not. All I have seen from the accolades’ side is deception, which leads me to believe that an Article V convention is most certainly a trap.
I have spoken to many supporters of an Article V Convention, and apart from one man (who is a fellow contributor friend), most of them don’t have a clue about the dangers involved in an Article V convention. In fact, they haven’t even read the other side. They’ve merely followed their media idols.
I will follow up this piece writing on the second portion of PH’s address. However, I encourage you to listen to the entirety of what she says. If you still find yourself in the camp that wants an Article V convention and you are still pressed to push for one, then all I can say is that you get exactly what you deserve.
