No
more legitimate than the creation of the Federal Reserve - quite a bit
in common. I have zero respect for the conspiratorial "drafters". They
were an unauthorized law unto themselves working for their own personal
enhancement and that of their cronies, most of whom were masonic. It
worked as planned!
http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/they-really-put-the-con-in-constitutional-convention/
--
Richard
Richard
Snip
“A Convention of delegates should meet “for the
sole purpose of revising the articles of Confederation and reporting to
Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions
therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the
States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of
government and the preservation of the Union.” (Italics in the original
of the version reprinted in Federalist 40.)”
Too bad this book wasn't available to the delegates so they could have understood what they were sent to do.
Too bad this book wasn't available to the delegates so they could have understood what they were sent to do.
Too bad this book wasn’t available to the delegates so they could have understood what they were empowered to actually do.
They weren’t sent to tear up the articles of
confederation and create this mammoth centralized power structure. Got
it? There already was a constitution. There already was an arrangement.
It worked fine. It needed a little tweaking, nothing more. When they
went there and scrapped the whole thing they did something they had no
agency authority to do. NOBODY, not the people, not the legitimate
government of the people, NOBODY Who sent them and who they CLAIMED to
represent sent them up there to create a WHOLE NEW FORM OF CENTRALIZED
GOVERNMENT.
Knowing that, let me ask you, if you’re doing
something you KNOW you aren’t supposed to be doing, what is the NUMBER
ONE thing you want and need while you are making your plans and doing
it? That’s right, make sure the proceedings are ALL SECRET and there are
as few a records as possible.
“The delegates also agreed that the
deliberations would be kept secret. The case in favor of secrecy was
that the issues at hand were so important that honest discourse needed
to be encouraged and delegates ought to feel free to speak their mind, and change their mind, as they saw fit. …the windows were closed and heavy drapes drawn.”
9 comments:
Someone needs to learn their history. Each state had a constitutional convention where the constitution was presented to the people and the PEOPLE VOTED FOR IT. It was not foisted on anyone. The people rejected it because it did not contain enough protections from government tyranny. So the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) were added. A majority of the colonies adopted the Constitution by a vote FROM THE PEOPLE. It was not unanimous, but those colonies that rejected submitted to the majority vote.
If you want to secretly write a new constitution, go ahead. Nothing wrong with that as long as it is put publicly before the people and the people decide if they want it.
Sounds like a reference to the 1871 Constitution
They waited almost 100 years to forward 'their' plan. The propaganda must have been flying about how inept our original founders were, who were present during the War for Independence, 1776, and for the creation of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which created the Continental Congress. Amazing how the created thumb their noses at the Creators... us, when they came up with the Constitution of Bankruptcy. Not sure John Hancock would have signed it, probably not.
Interesting, I've spent many hours studying the history of Article 5 and it's past use and have never heard of what you are stating. Could you please post a link to where I can read up on what your talking about? It is my understanding that once the doors close on a Article 5 or sometimes called a Convention of the States the outcome rests in the hands of those locked behind those doors. And as happened the one and only time to my knowledge an Article 5 took place the ratification process was changed from all 13 colonies to 9. I have recently seen a proposed new constitution called the constitution of the new states, it only requires ratification by the president and although they try to make it sound like it would be a great thing, it's not in my opinion if you read between the lines. You can read it here: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm#.VTJlJFfIjVp Also if you want to read more on the warnings of calling an Article 5 Convention you can read up on it here:
https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/article-v/
I check in on Nasara many times a day and look forward to reading your link to back your facts as I have backed mine. Thank you in advance! Oh, one other question for you, what makes you think our government would willingly follow or honor a new constitution when they don't bother to follow the one we have now, unless the new one is what they want it to be?
This is an extremely important article. The author's thinking is sound and his approach made me consider that we were brainwashed in school. This makes all the pieces fit together. It makes no sense that after the Revolution, the people would want a centralized government and the few who had the power to make it happen, bypassed the Articles of Confederation and gave us what we have now, an uncontrollable monster.
This was not learned from the internet. I learned this way before the internet came along, the old fashioned way. That history was even laid out fully in an old supreme court case I read once. I no longer remember the case, nor do I know which texts I learned this from, so I will just say, that is what I learned many years ago and have to leave it at that. You can take or ignore as you choose.
The numbers you are mentioning are familiar. If I remember, 9 of the 13 colonies ratified the constitution with the bill of rights added to it. Perhaps you can research why we have the bill of rights.
It makes perfect sense if you can think with an 18th century mindset and not a 21st century mindset. The newly independent colonies were falling apart financially. Each colony had its own currency, and it was not backed by any substance. It was just paper and inflation was running wild. I don't know if you remember reading stories how the paid militia would just cover themselves with paper currency pinned to their clothes because it was worthless. Trade was stagnant. A central currency was needed based on a sound substance. Once again it is all about the money. The most heated debates at the secret convention were over what would be money and what type of banking system would be set up. Once a uniform currency was established tied directly to gold and silver, the newly formed country became one of the richest on earth. However, you have to realize that one of the greatest reasons for this was because of all the gold and silver available for mining in this country.
This has happened once before in our Country. I’ll show you.
The Federal Convention of 1787: Federal and State Instructions to Delegates
Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution), the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74) to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia:
“for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.
The Continental Congress authorized each of the then 13 States to appoint Delegates to the convention. Twelve of the States 1 made laws respecting the appointment of Delegates and issuing instructions to Delegates. Ten States instructed their Delegates to propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation; and only two (North Carolina and New Hampshire) gave instructions which arguably permitted their Delegates to do more than propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation. 2
But the Delegates ignored the federal and State limitations and wrote a new Constitution (the one we have now is our second Constitution). Because of this inherent authority of Delegates, it is impossible to stop it from happening at a convention today (which will surely result in a third Constitution).
The Delegates to the 1787 convention also instituted an easier mode of ratification. Whereas Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required approval of all of the then 13 States before an amendment could be ratified; Article VII of the new Constitution provided that only 9 States were required for ratification of the new Constitution.
Why is an Article V Convention Dangerous?
So! Do you see?
If we have a convention today, there is nothing to stop Delegates from proposing a third Constitution with its own new method of ratification.
New Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention. Here are three:
♦ Fifty years ago, the Ford & Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. It is ratified by a referendum called by the President [Art 12, Sec. 1]. If we have a convention, and Delegates propose the Newstates Constitution, it doesn’t go to the States for ratification – it goes directly to the President to call a Referendum. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Read the Newstates Constitution and tremble for your country.
♦ The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.
♦ The Constitution 2020 movement is funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law professors and Marxist groups all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder. They want a Marxist Constitution and they want it in place by the year 2020. It further appears that Soros is funding much of the current push for an Article V convention.
https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/
It's only happen once as I stated before, so either you're remembering wrong or just mistaken? Perhaps you should research what you post? And then maybe you should research our Bill of Rights? Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is not the problem as I see it, it's the failure of We The People to bother with it! We have allowed the situation we are now in, not our Constitution and the brain washing taking place is in the present, not the past as some would like us to believe posting about an uncontrollable monster! And my previous question still goes unanswered, what makes anyone think our present government would follow a new or changed Constitution when they have failed to follow the one we have now unless it was to be of their wanting? Change for the good of We The People, I think not!
You people ought to check out this website: www.unionstatesassembly.org
Seems they did to research to prove what really happened and how we got the Constitution AND how we can get rid of it since it is 100% unlawful.
Post a Comment