Why James Madison trembled at the prospect of an Article V Convention

Editors note:  With the Idaho legislature dealing with the Convention of States pitch again this article begs to be re-run at this time.

 

Why James Madison trembled at the prospect of an Article V Convention

 

 

                                                                                         By Joanna Martin, J.D.   aka/ Publius Huldah

 

The following outline shows the absurdity of the Convention pushers’ arguments; their false claims and assurances about the Convention process; their misrepresentations of Court Opinions; their misrepresentations of whom they really serve, and their faked “popular support.”

 

Since everything they tell you is false; the question arises, “What’s their real agenda?”

 

I’ll show you. And then you will see why James Madison “trembled” at the prospect of an Article V Convention.[1]

 

I.

The absurdity of the Convention pushers’ arguments

 

1. They claim we need a Convention so we can get Amendments to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.”

 

But our Constitution already limits the federal government to a few enumerated powers!

 

Everyone ignores it. The federal government was able to usurp hundreds of powers not granted by our Constitution because state and local governments, hospitals, businesses, universities, farmers, individual citizens, and everybody else collaborated with the usurpations by taking federal funds to participate in unconstitutional federal programs.

 

Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing”—it needs to be read and obeyed: downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers! And stop taking the money!

 

2. Their proposed Amendments increase the powers of the federal government by granting new powers, legalizing powers already usurped, or stripping States of their existing powers. E.g.,

 

  • HERE are the Nightmare Amendments from “COS’s” first mock convention.
  • To see how six of Mark Levin’s “liberty amendments” do the opposite of what he claims, go HERE. [His other amendments are just as bad.]

 

No Amendment can make people obey the Constitution: When the federal government usurps powers not granted—and everybody accepts federal funds to participate in unconstitutional federal programs, all of them are ignoring the existing constitutional limits on federal power.

 

State Legislators who are concerned about federal spending and federal control should stop taking federal money to implement unconstitutional federal programs in their State!

 

II.

The Convention pushers’ false claims and assurances about the Convention Process

 

3. They claim George Mason said that when the federal government violates the Constitution, we need a Convention to amend the Constitution.

 

  • Mason’s concern was that Congress might not consent to Amendments needed to correct defects in the Constitution. HERE is what Mason really said.

 

4. Who judges and counts the applications? They assure State Legislators that Congress “can’t” call a Convention until Congress gets 34 applications asking for the same Amendment and that Delegates “can’t” do anything except consider Amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures.

 

But our Constitution doesn’t say that —they made it up!

 

And meanwhile, their supporters in Congress are filing legislation for Congress to count all applications together —regardless of the Amendment specified in State Legislature’s application.

 

5. Who decides how Delegates will be selected? They assure State Legislators that they will select and control the Delegates.

 

But our Constitution doesn’t say that—they made it up!

 

And in Congress’ preliminary preparations for a convention in the past, they provided for the election of Delegates.

 

We don’t know what the Congress of today would decide….

 

III.

The Convention pushers’ misrepresentations of the holdings of federal court opinions

 

6. The “Convention of States” organization (COS) distributes this flyer to State Legislators.COS misrepresents what the Courts said!

 

Here’s my response showing what the Courts actually held.

 

IV.

The Convention pushers’ false claims about whom they really serve and their faked “popular support”

 

7. Mark Meckler tells State Legislators that his organizations are funded by grandmas sending him $5.00 checks out of their paltry monthly incomes (with little notes attached saying they wish they could give more). But Dark Money—Not the Grassroots—Is Behind the Convention of States Organizations (COS)proves that almost 2/3 of the money driving Meckler’s effort to get State Legislatures to apply to Congress for a convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution is coming from major donors annually giving Meckler’s organizations $5,000 to $2,000,000 each over the latest 3 years of reporting available. Why are multi-billionaires trying to get their hands on our Constitution?

 

The Convention pushers are spending millions of dollars every year to buy a Convention: Meckler’s “Convention of States Action” organization alone spent $10,689,465.00 for 2022 [link under “Core Financials” and the 2022 Tax Form 990 for Convention of States Action [item 18 on page 1].

 

No organization with donors like that and with two Board Members (Robert P. George and C. Boyden Gray) who are also Members of The Council on Foreign Relations is a “grassroots” organization.

 

8. COS claims to have massive grassroots support for an Article V Convention. However, there is considerable evidence that their alleged support is faked:

 

  • This Phony Petitions and Polls flyer tells of how, during 2018, two Idaho Legislators reported that the COS Petitions they received were digitally “signed” by some constituents who, when contacted, said they never signed. Representative Priscilla Giddings called this practice “hi-tech fraud”. Representative Dorothy Moon called it “dirty tricks”
  • In this video, Representative Pepper Ottman of Wyoming tells of how during 2023, she received hundreds of emails from alleged supporters of SJR 11 (“COS’s” application for a convention). Since the names and addresses of [alleged] senders were provided, she contacted the alleged senders and they said they didn’t send the emails!
  • In this video, Representative Sarah Penn, also of Wyoming, recounts of how she received emails in support of SJR 11 from “constituents” – but when she contacted them, they responded with comments such as, “I don’t know what this is – I didn’t send it – what is COS?”

V.

So what’s the real agenda?

 

The Globalists want a new Constitution which moves the United States into global government.

 

9. The North American Union: During 2005, President George W. Bush, the Prime Minister of Canada, and the President of Mexico hammered out a Plan for a North American Community. A Task Force for the Council on Foreign Relations wrote it up – here’s their Report.It provides for the political integrationof Canada, the US, and Mexico. A Parliament is set up over the three Members and their military and police forces are combined.

 

The USMCA Trade Agreement: This so-called “Trade Agreement” between the United States, Mexico and Canada was approved by the United States during the Trump Administration. It is, in reality, a Transfer of Sovereignty Agreement. It provides for the economic and financial integration of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. In addition to putting the three countries under global regulation of a host of issues such as patents, environmental regulation, labor, immigration policy, prohibition of discriminatory practices respecting sexual preferences and “gender identity” in the workplaces; it puts the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in control of our economy and binds us to submit to an international monetary system which is to be administered and enforced (at least initially) by the IMF and which will replace our collapsing Federal Reserve system.[2]

 

The Declaration of North America: The Biden Administration is also pushing the North American Community: On Jan 10, 2023, Biden, the Prime Minister of Canada, and the President of Mexico issued the Declaration of North America. It’s a summary of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force Report on the North American Community.

 

On December 7, 2023, the United Nations’ “Human Rights Committee” issued it’s Final Report [click on “PDF”], wherein it praises the Biden Administration for its progress in complying with the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [3] by promoting abortion and transgenderism. The Report goes on to demand that the Covenant be applied in the United States’ “domestic legal order at the federal, state, local and territorial levels” (5). It objects to State Laws restricting abortion for women and girls (29). It objects to State Laws restricting voting by mail and ballot collection, and to “burdensome” voter ID requirements (64-65). It demands background checks for all private acquisitions of firearms and ammunition, and red flag confiscations. It demands bans on “assault rifles” and “high-capacity” magazines (35). It demands laws at the federal, state, local and territorial levels preventing schools from prohibiting biological boys who identify as girls from using girls’ bathrooms or competing in girls’ sports (24-25). It demands that the United States rectify past discriminations against Muslims seeking entry into the US (16-17). See Alex Newman’s article, UN Report Condemns U.S., Demanding Speech Control, Constitution Change and More Abortion.

 

10. The above is antithetical to our existing Constitution. The structure of the global government is already in place and its policies are now being carried out[4]; but it is not yet “legal.”They have no legal authority to force the federal, State and local governments to submit to their demands. So they need a new Constitution for the United States which moves us into the global government and strips the States and The People of their Rights and retained powers. Under the new system, we will have only the rights “granted” to us by government. [5]

 

To get a new Constitution, they need Congress to call an Article V Convention. A Convention isn’t about getting Amendments to our existing Constitution—that’s just the pretext for inducing State Legislatures to apply to Congress for Congress to call a convention. James Madison expressly warned that those who secretly wish for a new Constitution would push for an Article V Convention under the pretext of “getting Amendments.” He said that here, at endnote 3. Beware of false friends and paid endorsers who are selling you into slavery.

 

11. A Constitution which formally implements the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force Report hasn’t been released. But several other proposed Constitutions have been released:

  • The Constitution for the Newstates of America: Article XII, §1 provides for ratification by a referendum initiated by the President. [6] The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. We are disarmed under this Constitution (Article I, Part B, § 8).
  • The National Constitution Center is a quasi-official agency of the federal government. Under their Constitution Drafting Project, they released three proposed new Constitutions (read them here
    • The Progressive Constitution,
    • The Libertarian Constitution, and
    • The so-called “Conservative” Constitution. This Constitution was co-authored by the above-mentioned COS Board Member Robert P. George. It creates a new federal government which has express constitutional authority to impose gun control and red flag confiscations.

 

12. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, four U.S. Supreme Court Justices and other legal scholars warn against an Article V Convention.They understand that a Convention would likely result in the imposition of a new Constitution—after all, we have already gotten rid of one Constitution at an “Amendments Convention” and replaced it with a new one. Here’s what happened:

Our first Constitution was The Articles of Confederation. It had defects. So on Feb. 21, 1787, the Continental Congress Resolved to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia,

“…for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…”

But the Delegates ignored the instructions of Congress and similar instructions from the States, and wrote a new Constitution (our present Constitution of 1787) which created a new federal government.

And the new Constitution had an easier mode of ratification: it would be ratified when only 9 of the then 13 States approved it (Art. VII); whereas Amendments to the Articles of Confederation had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States (Art. 13).

 

In Federalist 40 (15th para), James Madison, who was a delegate to the Federal “Amendments Convention” of 1787, invoked the Declaration of Independence as justification for the Delegates’ ignoring their instructions to propose Amendments to the Articles of Confederation and writing a new Constitution which created a new Form of gov’t. Go here to see where Madison said it.

 

VI.

The Remedy our Framers actually advised:

 

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton wrote that because the States created the federal government [when they ratified the Constitution], the States are the final authority on whether their “creature” has violated the constitutional compact the States made with each other; and that when the fed gov’t usurps powers not delegated, each State has the natural right to nullify of their own authority all such acts of the fed gov’t. The refusal to go along with unconstitutional acts is the remedy they advised when the fed gov’t violates the Constitution.

 

This is not a mere “constitutional right” created by our Constitution of 1787—this is the God-given natural right of self-defense, which pre-dates and pre-exists the Constitution.

 

VII.

Please Rescind your States’ existing applications for Congress to call a Convention

 

14. Here is an archived and unofficial list of applications for a Convention already submitted by State Legislatures to Congress. Under the method of counting applications proposed by COS supporters in Congress, any one of the applications filed by your State Legislature could be counted by Congress to make your State one of the 34 States applying for a Convention.

 

Please protect our Constitution and promptly rescind all of your State’s applications. Heed the warnings, stand firm against a Convention, and do not let us be moved into the New World Order.

 

Endnotes:
[1] Here is where Madison said he “trembled” at the prospect of another Convention.
[2] For details on the USMCA “Trade Agreement” and the North American Union, refer to the three articles posted here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/usmca-trade-agreement/
[3] The United States ratified the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on June 8, 1992 under President George Bush, Sr.
[4] E.g., the immigration laws passed by the US Congress have long been ignored. The US government has been taking its orders respecting immigration from the United Nations. That’s why our Borders are wide open. The globalists are right now in the process of imposing their new monetary system on the United States. They are right now demanding that State and local governments submit to the UN’s perverse agenda respecting “human rights.”
[5] Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that Rights come from God and that the purpose of government is the hallowed one of securing the rights God gave us.
Compare that with the new conception of “rights” pushed in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
  • Article 8 provides we have the rights granted to us by the constitution or by law.
  • Article 21 provides that “the will of the people” is the basis of the authority of government; and that “the will of the people” is expressed by those whom they elect to public office (let that sink in).
  • Article 29 provides that our rights and freedoms can’t ever be exercised “contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations” (let that sink in – the UN is the ultimate Authority – not God).
[6] Note well: Any new Constitution will have its own mode of ratification. The mode of ratification for our US Constitution of 1787 is set forth at Article VII thereof. The mode of ratification of the proposed Newstates Constitution is set forth at Article XII, Sec. 1 thereof. Convention pushers are not telling the Truth when they assure you that “anything which comes out of a Convention must be approved by 3/4 of the States before it can be effective.”

 

Contact Joanna Martin, J.D. at publiushuldah@gmail.com and https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/January 2024

 

© Publius Huldah

 

From renewamerica.com

Categories: