Comments for Mint Dollar http://www.mintdollar.com The Federal Reserves Worst Nightmare Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:37:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 Comment on BANKRUPTED STATES = CON-CON & NEWSTATE CONSTITUTION by Bill Walker http://www.mintdollar.com/politics-economic-policy/bankrupted-states-con-con-newstate-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-14 Bill Walker Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:15:40 +0000 http://mintdollar.com/?p=219#comment-14 As usual the John Birch Society tells a pack of lies about an Article V Convention. Does any seriously believe that even if this "plan" were attempted that the states, who must ratify such an idea by 3/4th approval, would go along with it, thus giving up their own sovereignty not to mention their own political power? Never mind that it requires 2/3rd approval by the convention to even propose such nonsense. And if what this article says is true, that these people are so powerful that they can create this new Constitution, why haven't they done it? The author says they are waiting for a convention which means they are so powerful they can sweep all opposition before them to creating a new constitution yet are so impotent they can't make Congress call an Article V Convention? The ridiculousness of this article becomes really apparent when you know the facts of how many applications have been submitted by how many states and how long Congress has been required to call a convention. According to public record, the actual texts of the applications of which can be read at www.foavc.org, all 50 states have submitted over 650 applications for an Article V Convention. The Constitution requires 34 applications from 34 states. Even these opponents to a convention admit if 2/3rds of the state legislatures apply (34), Congress must call a convention. So, why no convention? Because Congress has publicly stated it has the right under the political question doctrine to veto the Constitution. The attorney of record for the members of Congress admitted in 2006 before the Supreme Court that a convention call is based on a simple numeric count of states, that the proper number of states had applied and that to refuse to obey the Constitution is a criminal violation of law. You can read about the lawsuit at FAQ 9.1 at the www.foavc.org website. Please, this is a serious constitutional matter. Take time to learn the facts. Read the material on both sides. Check what references this article provides and then check the references at FOAVC. Don't be misled until you've had a chance to look at the whole picture. And remember this, what this author is saying is that the Constitution should be vetoed by the government meaning that what he says we should fear is what he is really advocating. Once you establish any part of the Constitution can be vetoed, all of it can be and by a government we all know has and will do it. If the convention method of proposing amendments has issues, then instead of overturning the Constitution, why don't we consider solving those problems instead and get about holding a convention to solve the issues this nation faces? As usual the John Birch Society tells a pack of lies about an Article V Convention. Does any seriously believe that even if this “plan” were attempted that the states, who must ratify such an idea by 3/4th approval, would go along with it, thus giving up their own sovereignty not to mention their own political power? Never mind that it requires 2/3rd approval by the convention to even propose such nonsense.

And if what this article says is true, that these people are so powerful that they can create this new Constitution, why haven’t they done it? The author says they are waiting for a convention which means they are so powerful they can sweep all opposition before them to creating a new constitution yet are so impotent they can’t make Congress call an Article V Convention?

The ridiculousness of this article becomes really apparent when you know the facts of how many applications have been submitted by how many states and how long Congress has been required to call a convention.

According to public record, the actual texts of the applications of which can be read at http://www.foavc.org, all 50 states have submitted over 650 applications for an Article V Convention. The Constitution requires 34 applications from 34 states. Even these opponents to a convention admit if 2/3rds of the state legislatures apply (34), Congress must call a convention.

So, why no convention? Because Congress has publicly stated it has the right under the political question doctrine to veto the Constitution. The attorney of record for the members of Congress admitted in 2006 before the Supreme Court that a convention call is based on a simple numeric count of states, that the proper number of states had applied and that to refuse to obey the Constitution is a criminal violation of law. You can read about the lawsuit at FAQ 9.1 at the http://www.foavc.org website.

Please, this is a serious constitutional matter. Take time to learn the facts. Read the material on both sides. Check what references this article provides and then check the references at FOAVC. Don’t be misled until you’ve had a chance to look at the whole picture.

And remember this, what this author is saying is that the Constitution should be vetoed by the government meaning that what he says we should fear is what he is really advocating. Once you establish any part of the Constitution can be vetoed, all of it can be and by a government we all know has and will do it.

If the convention method of proposing amendments has issues, then instead of overturning the Constitution, why don’t we consider solving those problems instead and get about holding a convention to solve the issues this nation faces?

]]>