“Three Boogie Men” of Article 5: #1 – The Runaway Convention

4
578

The 3 “Boogie Men” of the Convention Of States

There are 3 common objections thrown at COS, with obvious disregard for fact checking the supporting evidence, thus the claims appear malicious and disruptive in nature, not authentic.

But we should answer objections frankly, to expose other readers and audiences to the truth when they are deciding. Objections are GOOD, if you can destroy the Article 5 objections, and the truth can do so.

These are the 3 primary objections:

Let me provide reasons why each of these are easy-to-fact-check, inaccurate “fake debate” in a number of ways.  There are real concerns about the use of Article 5, but the ones above are based on factual and logical fallacy.

Today we review the first boogie man, the #1 fake debate tactic:

“Runaway Convention Danger”

First off, a convention of states is NOT run by politicians. We, the people of each state, can send whoever we want as representatives. The PEOPLE own the process, not the politicians. So, get ready, WE have to drive this.  The passed states are already forming their processes.

A majority of Constitutional states still exist, with a majority of Constitution-minded voters, that is the foundation for fixing the runaway Supreme Court.

Constitutionalists are a minority, nationally. Just like 1776. Washington, through the Supreme Court, has “runaway” with the Constitutional, already, using Judicial Tyranny.

Annapolis Versus Philadelphia

In this fear mongering “runaway” claim, the false report of the original Constitution Convention being “only an amendment meeting” is often employed by John Birch Society allies, but that is not the case.  Annapolis, prior to Philadelphia, was an amendment meeting which failed.  Philadelphia was a meeting to craft a new Constitution:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Annapolis-Convention 

See how easy that was to prove it was “fake news?” But JBS supporters keep reciting this provable lie.

Historically Resistant to Abuse

Also, over 30 conventions have been proposed in America, and if Article 5 was such an obvious “low hanging fruit” opportunity to “runaway” with the Constitution, it would have been tried already.

Article 5 is a “one way street,” due to the high approval bar, which either produces on-topic amendments, or nothing at all.  A majority of constitutional voters exist in a majority of states, thus with Article 5 they can reign in the Federal government, while they still have legal, majority votership in most states.

No radical leftist groups have ever tried to turn an Article 5 effort into a runaway, so to predict that will happen now, is to invoke provable exaggeration and hyperbole. Fear mongering with false claims, when a pattern of non-abuse is clearly established in intent, logic and history.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_applications_for_an_Article_V_Convention)

Perhaps Article 5 Should be the ONLY Way to Amend

Actually, with so many bad amendments now on the books, after the Bill of Rights, the case for ONLY using Article 5 can, perhaps, be made these days.

They Already Ran Off With It, Dude

  • With tens of thousands of gun laws already on the books, despite Amendment 2 saying “shall not be infringed,” isn’t this clear proof the radical justices already ran away with Constitution?
  • How about the abuses of FISA spying, or Stingray cell phone spying on private citizens’ phone calls, while Amendment 4 calls for “shall not be violated?”   Amendment 4 has been ERASED, only used when politically expedient.
  • And let’s not forget court rulings about religion, while Amendment 1 calls for “shall make no law.”  Tens of anti-religion SCOTUS decisions exist, instead of the complete Federal silence mandated by Amendment 1.   Amendment 1 is KAPUT.  Nada.  Zero.
  • Amendment 10?  Flushed down the toilet.  State powers are routinely violated.  Ran away. Fled the scene.  Up and gone.

How Do You Stop The Runaway Supreme Court?

ConventionOfStates.com – Sign the petition. Get to know us. Volunteer. Donate.

And, please,  don’t spread lies about us being allies of Hillary, or the Hawaiian Hitler, or Soros.  Both Hillary and Soros have impugned our efforts in public media, a solid endorsement we are on the right track to restraining the runaway Constitution of the federal government.

Consider Our Endorsements

Please review our extensive list of conservative and libertarian endorsements:

Rand Paul, Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity, Allen West, Senator Jim Demint, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Senator Tom Coburn, Sarah Palin, Louisanna Governor Bobby Jindal, LtCol. Bill Cowan, USMC (Ret) – Fox News Terrorism Analyst, Steve Deace, “Legal Board of Reference,” plus more Senators and Representatives.

SHARE
Previous articleDeSantis Hearing Establishes the Muslim Brotherhood Must Be…
Next articleThe Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!
John Lofgren spent over 10 years researching US economic history, identifying best practices, and exposing findings in public forums in researching his well reviewed book, "Atlas Shouts". John earned degrees from the University of Florida and the University of Central Florida. A computer engineer, he holds five patents and has thirty years of design experience in electronics and design automation. He is also an accomplished lead singer and guitarist in a Motown/Classic Rock band.

4 COMMENTS

  1. I love how the author of this article (John Lofgren) gives lip-service to facts and accuracy, and then promptly abandons such standards.

    In the spirit of the convention-promoting “guru” Robert Natelson, Mr. Lofgren provided a link to “evidence” which, when opened, REFUTES the claim it was said to support. (https://www.britannica.com/event/Annapolis-Convention )

    The Annapolis Convention was claimed to be “an amendment meeting”, presumably to amend the Articles of Confederation.

    Yet, in the Britannica link Mr. Lofgren provided, it says nothing about it being “an amendment meeting”. It was held to discuss problems with tariffs between the states, but once they met, they realized the problems they faced “could not be effectively dealt with unless the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation were addressed.” They had NOT been sent to address changes to their existing Constitution, and recommended “a convention of all the states be held for that purpose.”

    The reason they called for a new convention was to "revise the Articles of Confederation". This was never the purpose of the Annapolis Convention.

    Looking further into Mr. Lofgren's source of Encyclopedia Brittanica, we find, under "Constitutional Convention: United States History [1787]", the statement, "Discarding the idea of amending the Articles of Confederation, the assembly set about drawing up a new scheme of government". (https://www.britannica.com/event/Constitutional-Convention)

    So, Mr. Lofgren's own source refutes his statement that, "Philadelphia was a meeting to craft a new Constitution".

    To quote Mr. Lofgren, “See how easy that was to prove ‘fake news?’”

    Additionally, Mr. Lofgren ignores the fact that, even James Madison himself admitted the 1787 Convention “departed from the tenor of their commission”.

    He also ignores the numerous runaway state conventions that have occurred since then. Runaway conventions are historically quite common.

    Mr. Lofgren also gives the false assurance that, in an Article V convention, “The PEOPLE own the process, not the politicians.”

    – Yet, politicians (state legislatures) apply for the convention.
    – Politicians (Congress) call the convention.
    – Politicians (state legislatures) select the delegates, which, in some states, are REQUIRED to be state legislators.
    – Just as with the COS “mock convention”, the majority, if not all of the delegates to the convention will be, yes, you guessed it, politicians!
    – Then, politicians select the ratification method, and politicians do the ratifying.

    I cannot find any point in the process where the people "own the process", and “have to drive this”.

  2. The Annapolis/Philadelphia counterclaim is "fake debate," it simply plays word games with the word amendment. He underplays the intent of Annapolis and Philadelphia. Ticky tacky objection.

    Then Mr. Brown reverses field and says Madison's comment was firm proof the entire Con-Con of 1787 ran off the rails – now he uses exaggeration of terms.

    Then Mr. Brown says many conventions ran off the rails….but gives no proof. "Quite common" – but no examples or details for the claim. Now we see a pattern of his trickery emerging.

    His final list of false assurances is, again non-objective, and even false – saying our mock conventions were all politicians is a provably bald faced lie, since there were no politicians at the Florida Mock Convention I attended, nor a number of others. Only one was created to host politicians – and it was the worst one. I agree – let's have no politicians at the convention of states.

    Mr. Brown, stop defending the status quo, Democracies never fix themselves, history is very clear. Determined conservative majorities in a majority of conservative states still have a chance. Join up, and help us keep politicians out of the process.

  3. On "Owning the process" and " We the People need to drive this" I believe we elect State Reps and District Senators to the State legislature to represent us. They are our local contact with what is happening in our neighborhoods. So part of the project is to drive this by engaging in our civic duty of a) voting and b) holding elected officials accountable. Levi Preston, (one of the last revolutionary war veterans) said something like: " We always intended to govern ourselves, and those red coats intended we shouldnt:" America is an experiment in self governance. Right? We are not subjects to kings or queens. We are exceptional and This sets America apart from other forms of governments in the world… Our Constitution starts out "We The People"

  4. Fears of a convention based on past events isn’t rational, and it misses the point of the COS petition. There was no frame work laid out for amending the Articles of Confederation, so of course there was question of how the process would work. That isn’t a problem with COS, as the Constitution lays out the process, and the convention can do nothing to change the governance structure; it can only suggest changes the states must approve by 3/4 vote.

    There are 3 factors that make it so a few can wield power over the many: Elections that dilute voter choice, lobbying that allows bribery, and excessive concentration of power in the hands of a few, such that the possibility the governors will reflect the make-up of the population’s values on any subject is perilously low (now, 560 people have absolute power over a nation of > 230 million people). Simply electing different people into this defective government structure will only change which minority gets served. The easiest of these to solve is the last, and that dilution of power is the goal of COS. No matter what the state legislatures approve, the fact that it is modified by the vote of > 560 people will make is statistically more likely to represent the majority (the will by math alone “own more of the process”). And that 1st step what makes the harder to fixes (a convention to establish ranked-choice voting and campaign finance reform that bans lobbying) possible.

LEAVE A REPLY