Tea Party Organizers Educational Forum. Our Mission is to Educate & Organize.
Tea Party Patriots just wrapped up a 4 week symposium on Article V. They presented it at the request of many of their members for information about Article V. Here are the links to the 4 installments for your information. Each presentation is about one hour long.We appreciate their interest and the opportunity that they have given to the interested public.We thank them for their work and effort.Basic Information covered by the Symposium;Article V of the U.S. Constitution outlines two methods for amending the Constitution. The first method allows for Congress to originate an amendment and the second provides for a convention of the states. The second method has never been used. The founders specifically provided that method to allow the people and the states the ability to reign in an over reaching federal government. However, there are some fears and some dangers to an Article V amending convention.http://www.teapartypatriots.org/article-v-symposium/week4/Reason for the Symposium;Is today’s federal tyranny demanding that we bring the government back within its constitutional limits? Does that need now outweigh the fears and dangers of an amending convention? Did the Founders provide us with the remedy in Article V? These questions need serious consideration. Tea Party Patriot’s Article V Symposium will tackle those questions by discussing the historical context of Article V, including the historical pros and cons. We will also discuss the current pros and cons and proposed amendments that are being promoted by various pro-convention groups.The Discussions were as follows:
This site says it clearer and more in depth than I ever could; http://www.14thamendment.us/amendment/14th_amendment.html
McFix. I am not knowledgeable vs anything except the 14th so I have no opinion one way or the other. That said, I will go fetch a site that you should read and pass on. It explains the intent of the 14th to include explanations made as part of the congressional record regarding who qualifies under the 14th.
From this link>
Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Same 14th site I sent you.
Here's a contemporary site;
Look on the banner under history and you will see the 14th amendment pages. It's a collection of facts and cases. Very informative read.
I had not noticed the post McFix. That said it is more than obvious to me that the 14th was never meant to confer citizen status simply for being born here. It appears Trump agrees as he has promised to try to stop the anchor baby fiasco/fraud.
The 14th Amendment doesn't provide for birth right citizenship... both in its body and intent as supported by the Congressional Record of the day. The author and the Amendment's supporters clearly addressed that issue and stated no such intent was implied. Birth right citizenship is a creation of the progressives and socialists... who are pushing for universal citizenship and borderless states... the prelude to one world government.
Missouri is now officially on the list for requesting an Article V Convention... the State Legislature just past the Resolution to request a convention. Let us hope that the other States follow suite QUICKLY and that every State sends good solid conservative delegates to the Convention once it is called.
I believer there are now 12 States with resolutions requesting Congress to call a convention... we need 34.
22 States to go.
It does not mater, as of now, Convention Of States, can not and will not move forward, they have failed to reply in many sites, how close does CFR have to go until they control the majority vote in the House Of Congress.
Personally I do not know you, but one of our team members, showed us where, maybe you, maybe Mangus, proposing to rest Artical V of The Constitution, who are you, and why would such a proposal be published. Advice, stay far from them people, there is a world of hurt going up against the UK, there maybe nothing to stop it now.
Ps, just in case the forum posted goes away, I ask you again, why reset Artical V Of The Constitution ? and I dont need permission.
Today we Americans are faced with similar problems. Not from a king, but from a president who acts like a king and seemingly does not have the best interests of America at heart but apparently is acting against American interests with his ill conceived ideology.
We were founded as a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
Our government was designed with perfect balance between three co-equal branches of government, the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial. Further, this new Republic was crafted specifically to be perpetuated upon a Democratic process. The Process, was unique and never before crafted more perfectly in the history, to be 'bound by the chains' of a Constitutional Law. The elected and represented democratic element was instituted so that we would remain a nation of laws and not of men.
What began as 13 independent colonies, joined to create a single nation under that Constitutional compact. We are in Fact 50 Separate, sovereign Nation States bound together for our mutual protection, benefit, and profits. To deny that would be tantamount to deny the blood and sacrifices of our forbears as well as human nature. The concept of STATE SOVEREIGNTY is no longer showcased by our Federalist dominated School system.
The original Declaration of Independence stated it most succinctly and clearly. What we desired for ourselves, our sovereignty-our freedom. Freedom we wanted to be able to live and prosper under and then pass down to our posterity. But even at the beginning of such a perfect Union, the Elitist elements of a ruling class mentality infected our Republic, the old world system followed and was nurtured in the new AMERICAN breasts of many. That element is still with us today. Is it a constant foible, and human frailty that we choose to debase ourselves to the lowest common denominator...power and control?
The dancing-prancing-jackanapes in power, assisted and probably controlled themselves by invisible elitist class strings, the faces of the marionettes change; the puppet masters too, but that elitist system has never left us. The same arrogant mentalities, who wanted to make George Washington a King so they could become his House of Lords, exist today, vying for favor and playing politics with our lives. Politics that thrive on privilege and power over the public they are supposed to serve. Today our national politicians conduct themselves just as the English Lords we left behind centuries ago did, .... as their King commanded.
Look where our decades of steps away from our Founding Principles and Constitutional government have brought us. These modern Peers have modified everything that we once held sacred as a Nation under God. It's to the point where we can't even acknowledge our faith in God or practice our Christianity. A Heartbreaking reality for a Nation founded on these very principles and based on moral conduct. Backward once again we have traveled, back to a class of politicians who are wrought in the same mold as the old Imperialists our forefathers had to fight against in our Revolutionary War! We must assert ourselves once again to insure that our Lives, Liberties, and Freedoms are not snatched from us by Elitist Rulers who want to return to the rule of men and scrap the rule of Law, but how must we fight?
PART 2. TWO CHOICES.
IS THE BEST SOLUTION THE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY FOR REDRESS AND RESET? ARTICLE V.
It has taken us eight paragraphs to barely come close to the sentence that Jefferson wrote those many years ago;
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Then as now those words contain the distillation of humanity's quest for Freedom and Self Direction
"We The People", with modern restrictions having been visited upon us tenfold, over the restrictions and excesses that King George visited on the first Colonists, need to declare for ourselves that we will no longer tolerate these excesses. That we will, in fact rescue our lawful rights as a free and sovereign people living in unified but sovereign and separate Nation States, that are bound truly and legally under the language and governmental design of the original Constitution.
There were three amendments, deliberately placed into the Constitution to abrogate and in fact subvert, the built in Checks and Balances of the Constitution. They have, as well, completely undermined the enumeration of powers clause. In doing so, just like a snowball rolling and growing down a hill, it has reversed the power flow as originally intended, FROM the States and given the source of control TO the Federal Government.
Over decades, this slow erosion away from our perfect form of government has resulted in our virtual Dictatorship today. A Federal Government powerful over the States and the people, an executive branch that aggressively tramps beyond Constitutional limits. The major players, the root source of our governmental change on course, were the Restoration Amendments known as the 14th, 16th, and 17th.
The 14th is the most insidious, was the first to be used for purposes other than it was originally intended. That intention was only and solely to defend the Citizenship and Voting Rights of the Freed Slaves PERIOD! It has been bastardized since then by being cited (erroneously IMHO) to allow everything from Anchor Babies having Citizenship to the now potential for same sex marriages. In fact it has been the most litigated Amendment ever to secure even more enforcement powers for, and to grow those powers for, the Federal Government.
For a clearer understanding of what the 14th has been transformed into from it's original intent, and how it has been mis-used through litigation, with judges legislating from the bench during that litigation to reverse the intent of the Founding Fathers. This site has the complete explanations http://www.14thamendment.us/ . Read the information before it goes missing like the Ratified Original 13th Amendment did during the reconstruction period.
Therefore; We The People have decided to restore the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands by availing ourselves of the Article V provision in the Constitution, to repeal the various amendments which were ALL proposed solely by the Congress for their own aggrandizements and increased powers, and that have since grown the Federal Government into something that it was never intended to become.
Consider the knowledge and learning that went into the crafting of the Constitution, and why the Framers and Ratifiers left within it the tool to correct any usurpation of it.They were highly educated and intelligent men who were students of both history and human nature. They saw the danger because they had lived it, they left us the solution, why do we not recognize it, why do we fear using it. It is lawful, peaceful, and achievable and completely effective. It all comes down to the Framers and Ratifiers trusting the people more than they trusted the government with it's corrupting influence of power feeding the greed of men.
PART 3 SECESSION?
MUST WE SECEDE? SHOULD WE CONSIDER DISSOLVING OUR UNION? some think so.
Some have suggested it has become the time for all of our citizenry, who are still free from the brainwashing of the progressive-socialist theology, to submit to our Government a modern day Declaration of Independence.
Let us intellectually explore that avenue, not as a call to rebellion, but as an exercise to educate the citizenry in the true power and authority the people wield over the Government.
A modern day Declaration of Independence could read as such;
We the people of the 50 Nation States that have voluntarily banded together to form the United States of America , sovereign States who are committed to mutual defense and economic protections to insure the ability of any and all of our citizens to pursue prosperity through their hard work and initiative without excessive restrictions set on them by an overbearing and over controlling government Hereby declare: If the Federal Government does not cede back it's stolen powers. If it fails to start obeying the Legal Constitutional Strictures, or refuses to Restore the Checks and Balances Forthwith. It is hereby ordered by the people, who are the highest governmental authority in America ; To Immediately return to it's proper sphere of governance which the Founding Fathers intended for it to have. Furthermore, if the Representatives of that Government do not return to obeying their specifically stated Enumerated powers incorporated within the Constitution of the United States, and Honoring their Solemn Oaths of Office, the people will take actions to see their demands are met.;
We The People, will direct our Independent Nation States Legislatures to peacably leave the present Union and form a New Republic. A Republic that will Strengthen Individual and States Rights. Return to the original intent of the written Constitution as the guideline for the New Republic. The Constitution but will mirror the current United States Constitution, but we will start from the beginning and incorporate only the Amendments such as the Original Bill of Right, clarifying the same to forever prevent future generations from "Interpreting" them to change their meanings. Rewrite all controversial areas in plain language, to prevent future Lawyers from obfuscating the original meanings. We will also write some few new areas that meet the criteria of that New Republics Enhanced Constitution while concurrently reviewing current Federal Laws, and voiding all current Federal Laws which do not meet our Criteria for the proper sphere of Federal Government. The States will return to their original position of supremacy and control over the Federal Government. All political and judicial leaders will be required to follow the New Constitution or be relieved of their positions.
Pursuant to that Declaration of intent to secede, We The People cite this as the legal reasoning of why we are allowed to make such a move; First, we must cite the Declaration of Independence as the document that covers the rights of a people to;
1. "dissolve the political bands which have connected them".
2. "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them".
3. "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. "
4. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. "
5. "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. "
All the explanations in those quotations are taken directly from the Declaration of Independence which is our ultimate Moral Authority for the formation of the United States, and placed here to showcase the rights of a people to self determination when their government becomes toxic to those cherished rights.
Next: We move on but only as an exercise for determining the possibility of legal secession from the "Perpetual Union" as a right that was already detailed in the Declaration of Independence that directly led to the formation of that "Perpetual Union". Also to educate the Governmental Representatives what our power and authority over them really consists of.
The Secession Question; As accomplished by the Southern states in 1860 and 1861 and as discussed by the North at the Hartford Convention in 1815, is an independent act by the people of the states, and accomplished in the same fashion as the several conventions that occurred throughout early American history. The United States would never be a party to a lawsuit on the issue because secession, both de facto and de jure, is an extra-legal act of self-determination, and once the States have seceded from the Union, the Constitution is no longer in force in regard to the seceded political body.
This same rule applies to the Article I, Section 10 argument against secession. If the Constitution is no longer in force—the States have separated and resumed their independent status—then the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction and therefore could not determine the “legality” of the move. Therefore we believe Lincoln was wrong when he declared the Confederate States as "In Rebellion" and still part of the Union.
Furthermore we base this on the 'Articles of the Confederation' said articles being not legally repealed when the current Constitution was ratified, and therefore we believe the 'Articles of Confederation' has the presumption of legal precedent by predating the Constitution, and not having been repealed before or after the Constitution was ratified and basing this presumption on Common Law.
We specify the section of those articles thusly; This is most explicitly stated in Article II, which reads: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” ((Yale Law School: Lillian Goldman Law Library, Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781, 2008,http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp; accessed June 2012.))
Based on this we declare that Inherent Sovereignty to dissolve ourselves from the Perpetual Union by means of that expressly granted and Codified Sovereignty.
We The People, in the interests of maintaining a peaceful solution to redress our legitimate concerns, will accordingly petition our fellow Nation States within the Union for permission to remove ourselves from that Union which in our considered opinion no longer represents our interests. We are basing that decision on the sections of the Declaration of Independence which is the moral basis for our Nations founding. We will agree that we will only invoke the declared secession valid and enforceable with the express permission of our Sister States. We will do this by requiring the same percentages of votes by our Sister States to approve Secession as the same percentage necessary for ratification of an amendment. We will accord every State that wishes to leave the "Perpetual Union" the right to secede using that peaceful artifice.
We The People, according to the current Constitution, are invested by it as the highest embodiment of government and governmental power and authority, that being codified and protected by the very Constitution itself. We do not take this step lightly, nor do we take if frivolously. We take it because all of our pleas of the the vast majority of our fellow citizens, amounting to approximately 3/4 of the population of the United States, have in fact been denied their lawful desires by the very representatives who were elected expressly to represent their desired cases for incorporation into general law.
We stand in the circumstances that our forebears did before the American Revolution with King George. We seem to be facing King Obama and his Parliament of Congressional Fops who kowtow to his every whim with no regard to the people whom they are legally and honor bound to represent. It is the sickness of modern Progressivism that has brought us to this brink.
Furthermore, if any States decide to Secede, We The People will annex all the Regular Military Assets,and Materials, and all Assets of the National Guard units residing in the respective States. We will take peaceful political control of all the Regular Military and National Guard Bases within those States. We will contract with their support industries within those respective states to supply the necessary items to protect and defend our New Nation.
However if any of the Military or National Guard Personnel stationed within those Seceded States decide they do not want to be part of the New Nation, we will give them leave to remove themselves peaceably to any States that decided not to secede, but they will not be allowed to take their issued equipment with them other than their personal gear and uniforms.
Those States who refuse to join in with us, Fear Not. We contemplate no aggressive actions towards you. We intend to Utilize the Original Constitution as our Guiding Document, in it's Original Form, removing all the Amendments after the Bill of Rights, to be our guiding principles of the New Government. The only other exceptions will be leaving the amendment for the abolition of slavery intact. And a modified amendment that guarantees the right to vote for every Legal Adult Citizen of the United States.
We also intend to revamp our Court system within the New States to remove any justices that have shown they do not adhere to the original Constitution concepts and declared principles of intent. The oaths of office that was taken by the officers and men in the Guard and Military shall be construed to hold valid to the defense of the Original Constitution and it's intent. prior to 1876. The methods and final determinations will be solely up to the New States Legislatures themselves.
The [restored] original constitution along with it's checks and balances will be the rule of law governing our new nation. There will however be, some modifications for clarification to the original Constitution.
First; of those clarifications will be to explain in clear and simple terms that the separation of Church and State is intended to prevent the Government from creating an official religion and not to suppress any citizens Peaceful and non-violent pursuit of their beliefs unless those beliefs run afoul of the Constitutional Laws, said religious deviation will not be allowed to supplant the Constitutional Laws.
Second; The Freedom of Speech will be understood to protect all forms of Political dissident speech, Obnoxious speech, passive non-violent protest is protected. Only specific areas of unprotected speech would be exemplified as shouting Fire! in a crowded theater if there is no fire. Deliberate Lies or Mis-Representations as statements of fact. Perjury.
Third; The Second Amendment will be construed to mean that every citizen over the age of majority is the ‘Militia’ and has the right to keep and bear arms up to and including the latest military technology excepting nuclear. The intent and reasoning behind this is to give the Citizens and the States the means to defend themselves against a government that has severely overstepped it's bounds. Provided every peaceful means has been exhausted prior to such use. It is also to be clarified that no government can enact a law that will abridge this right excepting incarcerated persons during their incarceration.
Fourth; The Tenth Amendment will be inviolable with respect to States Rights controlling the Federal Government's Rights and Actions.
Fifth; There will be a court of last resort for citizens who will challenge any governmental action. That court will be comprised of a panel of seven citizens who are chosen from the voter rolls and who will listen to the complaints of the citizen. A transcript of those complaints will be given to knowledgeable legal people who will in turn suggest the legal premises for the panel to decide the case. No lawyers will be admitted at this stage.
Sixth; The Article V section will be expanded to detail the format for any amendment convention regardless if it is called by the Congress or by the States. Said details covering all aspects of those conventions will have to be approved by vote of the citizenry with a 7/8 majority approval to become law.
Should there be a disagreement by any of the parties there will be a public trial with the jury randomly picked from the voter roles with no person excused except those who are physically or intellectually/emotionally unable or incompetent to attend a trial and/or render a verdict. The average citizen will be required to do jury duty.
Further; Any deviation from this format will have to be submitted to the public with both sides adequately represented.
PART 4 CONCLUSION
In conclusion of this exercise, we believe the people need to take steps to ensure the restoration of original Constitutional Principles, and offering a simple choice between the two on the way that may be achieved.
1. Amendment through Article V, and repeal of the 14, 16, and 17 amendments OR
2. A new declaration of intent for Independence followed by secession....
Which one is much simpler and less destructive to the concept of a nation?
Which one offers the less peril to restoration of original intent?
The second speaks to the fear many loudly protest, don't touch the Constitution through repeal or amendments offered by a States Convention because of the danger of changing it too much.
If we don't let the document defend and restore itself we risk far worse by more drastic means of correction? The best conclusion seems obvious.
I ask one more thing; Since all of the amendments after the Bill of Rights were proposed solely by the Congress, how many of them actually benefited the people more than they benefited the expansion of the Federal Government and Congressional power?
In view of that, who is to be trusted with modifying the legal controls over our way of life? The Congress, or the People themselves?
WE THE PEOPLE, need to re-establish the Government based on the old tried and true principles of the Original Constitution, and we need to do it now!
Hi you all, hope all is going good, I have a issue, I need your Constitutional Scholars, to reply to this,
(DNC) Democratic National Committee and the (RNC) Republican National Committee ) filters, this is a strange use of a word in this sentence above. because more and more people are now understanding how a pan groups from the UK, obtained the position within our Government. CFR, is in fact a pan group, a think tank, that writes legislation, Laws with our country.
Perhaps Donald Trump is seen as a threat to the UK's CFR Pan Group.
People are being murdered, on both sides of the political parties. The power struggle is seen, and the cover ups is also noted. Something is about to take place, I can not put my finger on it, but, I just feel it.
I know you seen the little Conspiracy Theory of (NAFTA) North American Trade Agreement, of which Trump does not like,but the NAFTA is listed as a NAFTA Magna Carta Treaty,
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.
Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Questions and Deceptions Of the Constitutional Democratic Democracy
With bias, and not in respect to the Republican Party or the Democrat party of We The People. The Republic Of America.
1. Why would the framers insist that even the most insignificant federal regulations should trump even the most important of state constitutional provisions?
2. If a state makes criminal an action using language identical to language in a federal statute criminalizing the same action, is the state law preempted? Clearly, there would be no conflict between federal and state law, but might state criminal enforcement jeopardize federal enforcement, or might the federal government be seen as having occupied the field of criminal enforcement? (See Pennsylvania v Nelson (1956), in which the Supreme Court found preempted a state sedition law virtually identical in its reach with the federal sedition law.)
3. If the federal government has occupied a field of regulation, for preemption purposes it becomes important to precisely identify the boundaries of that field. What suggestions to you have for how that inquiry ought to be conducted?
4. Don't punitive damages against a nuclear plant have the same practical effect as direct state regulation of the plant? What is the basis for finding the latter preempted but the former not in Silkwood?
5. How should we read federal statutes for preemption purposes? Should we read them normally, as Justices Thomas and Scalia contend, or should we read them narrowly ( a presumption against preemption) as the other justices in Cippollone argued?