The ‘Convention of the States’ Scam

Washington at Constitutional Convention of 1787, signing of U.S. Constitution.

Washington at Constitutional Convention of 1787, signing of U.S. Constitution.

The War over the Constitution, and how the States Sold the Reserved Powers to the Feds

FreedomPoet_LincolnDay

Our Constitution is a glorious document. This one page chart depicts the Structure of the federal government we created when we ratified our Constitution; and lists the “limited & enumerated powers” we delegated to the federal government over the Country at Large.

In a nutshell, our Constitution authorizes the federal government to handle the following objects for the Country at Large:

  • Military defense, international commerce & relations;
  • Control immigration & naturalization of new citizens;
  • Domestically, to create a uniform commercial system:  weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
  • With some of the amendments, secure certain civil rights.

Basically, that’s it.  As stated in the 10th Amendment, all others powers are reserved by the States or The People.

But for 100 years, almost everyone in our Country has ignored our Constitution.  Thus, instead of restricting spending to the enumerated objects of its powers, the people we send to Congress spend money on what anybody wants - and so gave us a debt of $17 trillion.  Instead of restricting lawmaking to the enumerated objects of its powers, the people we send to Congress make laws on whatever they like. The President we elected tramples all over the Constitution; and due to the connivance, cowardice, and ignorance of Congress, the supreme Court, State governments, and the American People, is seizing totalitarian power.

WE are in terrible trouble.

And it is the phony right wing which is seducing the American People into taking the final jump off the cliff.

Michael Farris, head of the Convention of States 1 project, begins his video with this spiel:

“We all know that our government is way off track. The debt is astronomical and is going to cripple not only our own freedom and our own economy, but our children and our grandchildren are going to be effectively slaves, paying for all the things that we’re spending money on today.”

That part of his video is true.

But the purpose of their spiels is to make you believe they are on your side.  You must look behind the spiels and think carefully about what they are proposing as “solutions”.  Much is at stake:

THIS IS THE WAR over our Constitution and Country.  And here are the two sides:

Learn & Enforce our Existing Constitution!

One side proposes that we learn & enforce our existing Constitution of limited & enumerated powers.  We show that our Framers advised us to enforce our Constitution by (1) electing better representatives to annul the acts of the usurpers, 2 or by (2) nullification of unconstitutional acts.

To illustrate: What would our Country’s financial condition be if WE THE PEOPLE had enforced the enumerated powers on Congress?

It is the enumerated powers which list the objects on which Congress may appropriate funds:

  • immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
  • mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
  • Attorney General (Art. I, §8, cl. 6)
  • post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
  • patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
  • federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9)
  • military (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
  • the civil list (Art. I, §6, cl.1)
  • [and other objects listed in various other articles, sections, &clauses]

Do you get the idea?  The Constitution itemizes what Congress is permitted to spend money on. See also the two geographical areas over which Congress was delegated “general legislative powers”: Art. I, §8, next to last clause, & Art. IV, §3, cl. 2).

The reason we have a debt of $17 trillion is because everyone ignored the Constitution; so Congress spent money on objects outside the scope of its enumerated powers.

Amend Away our Existing Constitution?

But the Randy Barnett 3/ Rob Natelson/ Michael Farris/ Mark Levin camp want a “convention” so they can gut our existing Constitution by amending out the limited & enumerated powers with new amendments which grant general powers to the federal government; or they seek to re-write the Constitution altogether. 

Here are illustrations of how the limited & enumerated powers can be amended out of our Constitution:

It has already been shown how the so-called balanced budget amendment would transform our Constitution from one of enumerated spending powers to one of general spending powers, where spending would be limited only by the amount of revenue the federal government generates or a certain percentage of the GDP. 4 But under our existing Constitution, the federal government’s expenditures are limited by the constitutional grants of authority – the enumerated powers.  The problem is everyone ignores the enumerated powers - they never learned what they are!

Here is another illustration:  Michael Farris, the grand master of The Spiel, has managed to convince many parents that the only way to protect their parental rights is an amendment to the Constitution which delegates to the federal and State governments constitutional power over their children!

And Mark Levin’s suggested amendments would gut our Constitution.  Most increase the powers of the federal government by making constitutional what is now unconstitutional because it is not an enumerated power.  The amendments pertaining to “overrides” undermine the Constitution as the objective standard of what is lawful and what is not – and substitute majority vote therefor.  These “overrides” would erase the Constitution and replace it with majority (mob) rule.

Or is “re-writing the Constitution” their actual goal?

Farris says in the video:

“…sometimes what you need is not a change of personnel, you need a change of structure. The Founders understood the importance of structure…”

Does that give you cold chills?

How does Farris seek to change the structure?

Please – all of you – look at this one page chart which depicts The Structure of the federal government our Framers gave us:  What needs changing?  Isn’t enforcement what we need?

Jordan Sillars, Communications Director for Farris’ Convention of States Project, let the cat out of the bag:

On September 15, 2013, a discussion on my Face Book page was started about Mark Levin’s clamoring for a “convention of states”.

On or before September 19, Jordon Sillars posted a comment wherein he said:

“… 3. I think the majority of Americans are too lazy to elect honest politicians. But I think some men and women could be found who are morally and intellectually capable of re-writing the Constitution…” [boldface mine].

On September 19 at 1:20 p.m., I responded:

“So, this really is about “re-writing the Constitution”, isn’t it?

And could you name these individuals who are “morally and intellectually capable of re-writing the Constitution”?”

Sillars thereafter deleted his comments, but not before I obtained a screen shot of his quoted comment which you can see here.

Why did he delete his comments?

Now let’s look more at what Farris says in his video:

The False Statements & Silly Arguments of the Proponents of a “convention of States”

1.  After his introduction about the $17 trillion debt, Farris goes on to say:

The States have the power under Article V to call a convention of the States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution…”

His statement is false.

The Truth is the States have no authority to call the convention.  That power is delegated to Congress.  Article V says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…” [emphasis mine]

Congress calls it.  Not the States.

Furthermore, Dr. Edwin Vieira has pointed out:

 ‘The language “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments” sets out a constitution duty in Congress. It embraces a constitutional power as well. That brings into play Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, which delegates to Congress the power “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers [that is, in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 through 17], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”. The power to “call a Convention for proposing Amendments” is one of those “all other Powers”. Therefore, pursuant to that power, Congress may enact whatever “Law[ ] which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the * * * Power [to call a Convention]’.

So!  Since Article V vests in Congress the power to call the convention; and since Article I, §8, last clause, vests in Congress the power to make all laws necessary & proper to execute its delegated powers; 5 Congress would be  within its constitutional authority to organize the Convention anyway it wants, and to appoint whomsoever it wishes as delegates. 6

Now look at this:  The chart on Article V shows that James Madison, Father of our Constitution, remarked on the vagueness of the term, “call a Convention for the purpose”:

How was a Convention to be formed? – by what rule decide? – what the force of its acts?” (Sep. 10); and “difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, &c., which in constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided” (Sep. 15, 1787).

Phyllis Schlafly also raised Twenty Questions about a Constitutional Convention.

Congress, pursuant to Article V and Article I, §8, last clause, has the constitutional power to answer all these questions by means of a law.

Folks!  The Farris/Natelson/ Levin camp is not telling you the truth when they say the States decide these issues!

2. Farris then says in his video:

“…in Article V of the Constitution [the Founding Fathers] gave us the solution…”

“…they gave the power to the States to create a new set of rules when the federal government overstepped its boundaries. We can recalibrate the rules to take power away from Washington D.C. and give it back to the people and to the States.”

His statements are both false and silly.

Here is the false part of what he said:

It was not the consensus at the Federal Convention of 1787 that the purpose of Article V was so States could make amendments to the Constitution in order to take power away from a federal government which had usurped power by violating the Constitution.

This chart shows what happened at the Federal Convention of 1787 re development of Article V.

Two delegates (Randolph & Mason, who didn’t sign the Constitution) supported the notion that amendments might be used if the national government should become oppressive.  And they didn’t want Congress to have any power over amendment procedures. Their view was the minority view.

Other delegates (Gov. Morris, Hamilton & Madison) thought Congress ought to be able to propose amendments.  One delegate (Mr. Gerry) worried about States obtaining a convention and binding the Union to innovations which subverted State Constitutions.  Hamilton spoke of amendments to correct defects which would probably appear in the Constitution.

So the final version of Article V provides two methods of proposing amendments to the Constitution.  Congress either:

  • Proposes the amendments; or
  • “Calls” a convention when the Legislatures of 2/3 of the States apply for it.  [Now see Art. I, §8, last clause.]

Now for the silly parts of what Farris said (and there are two silly parts):

3.  Farris tells us the solution to a federal government which “overstep[s] its boundaries” [violates the Constitution] is to amend the Constitution.

He proposes “to take power away from Washington D.C.” [power the federal government has    usurped] by “recalibrate[ing] the rules”.

In other words, the solution to a federal government which violates the Constitution is to amend the Constitution.

Do you see how silly this is?

4.  Farris and his camp also imply that the States are victims of federal tyranny, and are the virtuous & wise ones who can fix our Country if they can just get a convention to propose amendments.

But the States are the ones who sold you out to the federal government in the first place!  I’ll show you:

The 10th Amendment says:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

What happened to these reserved powers?

The States sold them to the federal government.

Let’s use education as an illustration of how the States sold to the federal government your reserved power to educate your own children in the way you see fit.

The Creator God who, as recognized by our Declaration of Independence, endowed us with unalienable rights; assigned to parents the responsibility to provide for the education & moral instruction of their children:  Proverbs 1:8-9, 6:20-21, 13:1, 22:6 & 23:19-22; Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 4:9-10 & 6:1-7; Ephesians 6:1-4; 2 Timothy 1:5  & 3:15-17.

 

Is “education” one of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government for the Country at large?  No.  So the federal government has no constitutional authority to get involved.  Accordingly, all acts of Congress pertaining to education for the Country at Large, the federal Department of Education, and all their rules & programs are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.

 

So why does the federal government dictate all things respecting education?

Because your States sold your God-given responsibility to educate your own children - and your reserved power to do so - to the federal government.  This has been going on for a long time; but most recently your State sold you out for federal grants with the federal government’s “race to the top” and “common core” schemes. 7

You have to be ignorant, unthinking, & gullible – a greenhorn - to believe that The States are the men in the white hats who can fix all this with a convention to propose amendments.

Conclusion

The federal government is not the problem - it is the result of our own ignorance, pride and folly.

WE THE PEOPLE, who are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” (Federalist No. 16, next to last para) didn’t trouble ourselves to learn the enumerated powers of Congress and the President.  Do you know them?

I ask my Readers who have been supporting the “convention of States” scheme:  Have you studied our Founding Principles set forth in The Declaration of Independence? Have you studied the text of the Constitution so that you know what it says?

If not, how are you qualified to know how to “fix” a Constitution you never learned?

Are you willing to stake your lives & liberties, and those of your progeny, on whether those in the Barnett/Natelson/Farris/ Levin camp (1) know what they are talking about, and (2) are telling the truth?

Why? Because you like them?  Because they provide a scapegoat which permits you to blame-shift?  And you think you can “get even”?

Wise voices in this Country are warning you about the scam.  Foremost among them is Phyllis Schlafly, who has been warning of this danger for decades. Yet, such is the ignorant conceit of the greenhorns that they sneer at those who are warning them.

I trust you now see the connection between the moral corruption of a People and tyranny.

Endnotes:

1 Use your own head!  Do not be manipulated by other peoples’ choice of words. Rob Natelson formerly referred to what he wants as a “constitutional convention”.  Now, he calls it a “Convention of the States” – that is the term his cohorts & minions now use.  Why did they change what they called it?

2 But our elections are no longer honest. The States took federal grant money to buy voting machines which can be rigged.

3 Randy Barnett’s “Bill of Federalism” is ten proposed amendments which would transform our Constitution from one of enumerated powers to one of general & unlimited powers.  Mark Levin’s proposed amendments are similar to Barnett’s.

4 The GDP is computed by an agency in the Executive Branch. So under the BBA, spending would be limited by numbers under the control of the federal government:  By how much they tax you; or by a number (GDP) the Executive Branch computes. You think that is a fine idea?

5 The Federalist Papers tell us what the “necessary & proper” clause (Art. I, §8, last clause) means:  The clause delegates to Congress power to pass all laws necessary & proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary & proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 4th  para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (Federalist No. 33, 2nd para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a tautology or redundancy. (Federalist No. 33, 4th para).  See also Federalist No. 44, 10th -17th paras.  In other words, the clause permits the execution of powers already declared and granted.

Do not be misled by Rob Natelson’s post on the “necessary & proper” clause!  Why did Natelson ignore what The Federalist Papers say about this clause?  Why did he fabricate the song & dance set forth in his post?

6 Think this through also: Even if Congress, as a matter of grace, permitted the States to appoint delegates, how would delegates from your State be chosen? Who controls your State? Would the powers in your State choose you?  Or do you believe Michael Farris would choose the leaders?

7 This happened in your State because The People in your State elected to State government people who sold you out.  See this website on federal grants:  http://www.ffis.org/database   You think your State Legislators, who have been gobbling up all the federal grant money they can get, will fix our Country at a “convention” to propose amendments? PH.


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Publius Huldah is a retired litigation attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs. She also shows how The People can, by learning our Founding Principles themselves, restore our Constitutional Republic.
Publius Huldah
View all articles by Publius Huldah
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • R Goemaat

    Thank you! Thank you! Great article.

  • Dan Hunt

    You’re article is on the mark except for one point with respect to Article I Section VIII Clause XVIII. The foregoing powers it references are in regards to the enumerated powers in Section VIII. Regulating a Constitutional Convention is not an enumerated power granted to the Legislative branch in Section VIII. It is therefore a power reserved to the states or to the people per Amendment X. Congress can only call for a Convention per Article V but the states can set the parameters except for proposing Amendments prior to a Convention. If this power was reserved to Congress, then they could impose such restrictions, thereby providing too little latitude, making it extremely difficult if not impossible to conduct a Convention as they states desire.

    • publiushuldah

      Re-read Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause, and pay special attention to the last two phrases. Diagram the entire clause.

      Then, I suggest you read the Federalist Papers quoted and linked to in footnote 5.

      Then read the quote from Dr. Vieira.

    • publiushuldah

      Dan, here is another way of explaining the necessary & proper clause: Go thru the Constitution and highlight all the powers delegated to Congress. These
      powers fall into 4 categories:

      1. The enumerated powers over the Country at Large (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl 1-16);

      2. The general legislative powers over the federal enclaves (Art. I, Sec. 8, next to the last clause) and the territories (Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl.2);

      3. Those in the various amendments; and

      4. The “housekeeping powers” over the country at large:

      (a) An enumeration of the population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives and direct taxes (Art. I, § 2, cl. 3);

      (b) Elections of Senators & Representatives (Art. I, §4, cl. 1) and their pay (Art. I, § 6);

      (c) After 1808, to prohibit importation of slaves (Art. I, § 9, cl. 1);

      (d) After 1808, to restrict migration (immigration) to these United States (Art. I, §9, cl. 1);

      (e) A restricted power to suspend Writs of Habeas Corpus (Art. I, §9, cl. 2);

      (f) To revise and control imposts or duties on imports ../or_exports_which_may_be_laid_by_States__Art._I__§_10__cl._2__3.css);

      (g) A restricted power to declare the punishment of Treason (Art. III, §3, cl. 2);

      (h) Implementation of the Full Faith and Credit clause (Art. IV, §1); and,

      (i) Procedures for amendments to The Constitution (Art. V).

      It is the “necessary & proper” clause which delegates to Congress the power to carry these delegated powers into execution. See?

      • man50

        The necessary and proper clause pertains to foregoing powers. Foregoing means preceding or prior as defined in Roget’s Thesaurus. Foregoing powers, in context of the necessary and proper clause, is referring only to those power that come before Clause XVIII.

        Article IV Sec III Clause II refers to Congress making rules and regulations for territories and property belonging to the United States. The Founding Fathers definition of “United States” is in Amendment X. It identifies three groups; United States, states and the people. Clearly United States does not include states or private individuals, United States can only be defined to include the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches. The Founding Fathers are stating Art IV Sec III Clause II does not pertain to property owned by the states or individuals. It is relevant only to property owned by the three branches of the federal government.

        Therefore Article V gives only the states the Constitutional authority to set the rules as to where and when a Convention can occur and how it will be conducted on property not belonging to the United States.

        Dan Hunt

        • publiushuldah

          Dan, you must read all of Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause. You read only the first phrase.

          Now, sit down because I am going to say something shocking: you must also read the next phrase!

  • ajackattack

    I totally agree with her. In fact the states do have to ability to correct past usurpation but have no intention to do so. There are two amendments that were not even ratified and yet they are forced upon us because the suspect states refuse to hold to the rules and laws of process. The 16th and 17th amendments were never ratified as per law and procedure but these states allowed the government to force these issues on us with no remorse in total dereliction. They gave their control of the Senate away and let powerful lobbyists not control them. If any Governors or state legislatures were to hold their ground and challenge this improper ratification process we could remove those two amendments and revert back to a more representative government. as you can see they continue to give away our freedoms and abilities.

    • publiushuldah

      Correct. The States, above all, don’t want to lose their federal funding.

      • ajackattack

        It is a shame they throw us under the bus for really no benefit. These are things we could afford if Fed taxes reduced as 16th amendment cancellation would do. If they want to spend all of this time gathering together to get everyone on the same page to go forward for another couple of years , why don’t they try correcting the record and nullify those two amendments first. Seems a lot easier to me. Just need 13 of original states to agree the their process was wrong and therefore void. After all there are 28 Rep states in that mess as well. Many of which have the major discrepancies to void ratification.
        .

  • TrudyS

    I’ve followed Publius Huldah’s work for over 4 years. She is absolutely scrupulous in her research. She is basing all explanation on The Federalist Papers, the original Constitution and on her own uncommon wisdom and clarity. She brings the perfect points to us who barely “know” the Constitution! Study the references she offers. You will see that she is defending our life and liberty. We dare NOT have a Con-Con in this ignorant society. Pay attention and let us be FREE again, under the Constitution as it was brilliantly designed!

    • Jane Lee

      Very well said Trudy. PH is scruplous!!!

  • RALPH BODIE

    A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IS VERY DANGEROUS, AND UNNECESSARY. HONORING OATH OF OFFICE WOULD CERTAINLY BE EFFECTIVE FOR OUR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. CERTAINLY WE HAVE MANY PROBLEMS AND THE PRIMARY SOLUTION REMAINS WITH THE CITIZEN. CITIZENS ARE REQUIRED TO UNDERSTAND THE STRUCTURE OF THE REPUBLIC. THEIR KNOWLEDGE IS PRIMARY TO ADHERENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. THE FRAMEWORK OF OUR REPUBLIC IS STRUCTURED IN THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS. WHY DOES U.S. HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS MASSIE (R) KY UNDERSTAND HIS PROPER ROLL TO THE SERVICE OF HIS STATE AND NATION AND THE REMAINING CONGRESSMEN FAIL TO CONSISTANTLY HONOR ANY VOTE REPRESENTING THE U. S. CONSTITUTION? HOW CAN A MARXIST SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION? AS CITIZENS WE MUST CIVILLY CONFRONT AND DEMAND THAT OUR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT HONOR THEIR OATH OF OFFICE. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS! Respectfully, Ralph Bodie citizen

  • JimMT

    Excellent! Thank you!! The 17th amendment, while it took from the legislatures the power to “appoint” senators to Congress, did NOT take away the duties of those senators to the states from which they came. In other words, each state’s senators are obligated to follow rules established by the STATE constitutions, and adhere to wishes that the state legislatures want. As this article says, states have sold out to Federal largesse. Beware of federal geeks bearing gifts.

    • wanttruth

      Thank you for this article and all the links to do my own research. I have been looking at this for a couple of hours and have shared with everyone on my email list!

      • publiushuldah

        Oh, I do love digging into those old records from our Founding Era to find the actual words and writings of our Framers.

        Good research demands that we find original source writings of our Framers - and see what they actually said.

        Sadly, academic & moral standards have collapsed in this Country. That is why we can not trust Professors - and lawyers - and anybody else to tell us the Truth.

        Writers should provide links to original source documents which prove what they say - and then, WE must look all the references up to see if they actually say what the author said they say.

        Have fun! I did.

  • Dave

    Thanks for the awesome clarification Publius….

  • Katherine

    Right on Publius Huldah! I believe the right got so hungry for a major development “in research” which seemed to spell out a “constitutional path” to break free from federal control, that they rushed for a Convention of the States.
    I know the feeling, after decades of duking it out in the trenches with fellow conservatives in one battle after another in the name of liberty. After reading this excellent article, I’m back to researching the matter more closely, and I thank you, Publius Huldah, for reminding us go to our Founders’ source documents.
    The Constitution is a beautiful document. I would encourage anyone who wants to study the Constitution more closely to take the free online courses from Hillsdale College; Constitution 101 and Constitution 201.

  • Alleged Comment

    Dear Publius,

    You said everyone is ignoring what is in the Constitution. I hear some people calling for civil disobedience at what is going on in Congress and I correct them by saying when you disobey your unconstitutional leaders you are actually practicing CIVIL OBEDIENCE for once!

    And isn’t it about TIME????

  • Guest

    We really need the proposed 28th Amendment passed too. Then we’d have less garbage tossed at us….THX for your work here. Mucj appreciated ^ shared on Fb
    MERRY CHRISTMAS!
    to wit: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives.”

  • jade_stone

    We really need the proposed 28th Amendment passed too. Then we’d have less garbage tossed at us….THX for your work here. Much appreciated and shared on Fb
    MERRY CHRISTMAS!
    to wit: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives.”

    • publiushuldah

      Merry Christmas to you too, Jade-stone!

      But let’s analyze the proposed 28th amendment. The Question we must always ask is: HOW WOULD A PROPOSED AMENDMENT CHANGE OUR EXISTING CONSTITUTION?

      Under our present Constitution, Congress is permitted to make laws over the Country at Large only in a few precisely enumerated areas. These are the “enumerated powers” of Congress.

      BUT, under the proposed 28th Amendment, Congress could make laws on any subject it wished, as long as the new law applied to them as well as to us.

      So, the proposed 28th amendment would actually fundamentally transform our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only to one of general unlimited powers. For more info, go here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/the-28th-amendment-another-terrible-idea/

      Tinkering with our Constitution is VERY Dangerous.

  • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

    While we’re all looking things up, hadn’t we also have a look at what some of the detractors of the Constitution had to say about it? If you listen to what they said and their fears of what the new government might or could become, we can see that many of their fears have indeed come to pass.
    It sure wouldn’t hurt any of us to read as much as was written at the time on this subject.
    (Listen wasn’t a typo)
    https://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox

    • WXRGina

      I agree! The Anti-Federalists had many excellent points and arguments, and they feared what is happening today-a federal government grown into a monster. I wish more people would cite the Anti-Federalists along with the Federalists when presenting the words of our Founding Fathers.

    • publiushuldah

      Our Constitution isn’t the problem. The problem is that We The People didn’t enforce it. We failed to be “the natural guardians of the Constitution” we were called to be.

      We didn’t enforce it b/c (1) We didn’t trouble ourselves to learn it [how many of your contacts can name the enumerated powers of Congress and of the President?]; and (2) when the Progressives told us that we didn’t have to take responsibility for our own lives and for those of our parents and children, we jumped at the opportunity. Oh! We were thrilled at the prospect of living at other peoples’ expense.

      WE are the Problem. And WE are the solution. Learn our Founding Principles and Documents, repent of our sins, and do as our Framers did at the Federal Convention of 1787: call upon God for assistance.

      • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

        Yes, I agree. But then the next sentence, unwritten in your diatribe, is that we must vote to make a difference.
        Voting is exactly the wrong thing to do, but statists continue to beat this drum, and sheeple continue to attempt to fix America without actually making any real effort.

        • publiushuldah

          Diatribe? Oh my!

          You & Dan Hunt (see his two comments above) have something in common: you both read the first phrases in sentences, and ignore the following phrases. What I wrote above is this:

          “One side proposes that we learn & enforce our existing Constitution of limited & enumerated powers. We show that our Framers advised us to enforce our Constitution by (1) electing better representatives to annul the acts of the usurpers, 2 or by (2) nullification of unconstitutional acts.”

          When you get to the little 2 in superscript - read the footnote [always a great idea], and then read the rest of the sentence.

          • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

            Voters are fools. “Our” framers? “Our” constitution? Please!