Constitutional Emergency


10 states line up to limit federal power

Constitutional convention needs 24 more to call Washington to account

Published: 21 hours ago



By Paul Bremmer

Ten states now have taken the first step toward limiting the power of the federal government.

Officials from Arizona, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia and Wyoming have filed resolutions calling for a convention of states that would propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution with the express purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.

Article V of the Constitution gives the states the power to call such a convention. The article reads, in part:

“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, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”

Mark Meckler, president of Citizens for Self-Governance, co-founded CSG’s Convention of States Project, which is currently working to convince the necessary 34 state legislatures to pass bills calling for a convention of states.

As long as all of the applying states call for a convention to deal with the same issue, Congress must call the convention into session.

Meckler said that, in addition to the 10 states that have already filed, he expects another 15 to 20 states to file resolutions for a convention in the next few weeks.

“We will have legislation introduced in enough states to get to 34,” Meckler said.

He made it clear that filing a resolution is not enough; a state legislature must vote to pass it in order to make it official.

CSG is employing a grassroots-based strategy to gain support for a convention. The organization is trying to build a political operation in at least 40 states, getting 100 people to volunteer in at least three-quarters of each state’s legislative districts. The organization reported just days ago that volunteers had submitted convention of states petitions in 95 percent of all state house districts in the U.S.

Meckler said the need for the states to limit federal power did not suddenly arise overnight. He believes a convention like this should have been held years ago. But he thinks people are only now beginning to understand the power that Article V gives the states.

“Frankly, most people just didn’t understand that the sovereign citizen had retained that power in the Constitution, and so I think that knowledge of the power that the people have under Article V is just now reaching critical mass,” Meckler said.

Randy Barnett, professor of legal theory and director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, said it’s about time for a convention of the states.

“I think it’s one of the means that the Founders gave us to constrain the powers of the federal government, which is not about to constrain itself,” he said.

Get your own copy of the U.S. Constitution, “The Politically Incorr...

Barnett said if the states can agree to have a convention, they should be able to agree on some amendments as well. The professor mentioned two things he would like the convention to do – impose term limits and give states the power to repeal federal laws.

“There are a lot of good ideas that have been circulated, but it’s going to be a give-and-take like all deliberative assemblies are,” Barnett said.

Meckler agrees that a convention would be able to agree on certain fundamental reforms that members of both parties support.

“Contrary to what the politicians pitch us on, and what the media tends to pitch us on generally, the nation is not as divided as they would like us to believe,” Meckler said.

He mentioned three amendments that he believes the convention would agree on. The first is term limits for congressmen and senators, the second was a balanced budget amendment, and the third was a single subject amendment, which would mandate that every bill Congress passes contain only a single subject. He emphasized that all three of those proposals have broad bipartisan support from the American public.

“So I think what comes out of a convention are things that are what I would describe as very mainstream, non-radical, that the vast majority of Americans will agree upon,” Meckler said.

Still, Meckler realizes some people will oppose a convention of the states. The John Birch Society, for example, challenged the wisdom of an Article V convention in a series of 16 questions. But Meckler is untroubled by the opposition so far.

“We’ve met some resistance, but it’s so far relatively minimal, and the resistance has come from folks who love the Constitution and some folks who mistakenly believe that somehow this opens Pandora’s Box,” he said.

Meckler said he has not yet faced any resistance from establishment politicians in Washington. However, he thinks that’s only because they aren’t paying attention to his movement yet.

“I think that pushback from the establishment will come, because they like the perks and the benefits of centralized power, and we’re trying to disperse that power back to the people where it belongs,” he said.

If the states do end up calling a convention, the historical weight of the moment will not be lost on Meckler. It would be the first time the states had ever exercised their right under Article V to call a convention to amend the Constitution.

“This is a tool that was given to us in 1787 in the Constitutional Convention, and it was literally drafted for moments such as this, when the American public felt that the federal government had exceeded the bounds that were intentionally placed upon it by the founders,” Meckler said.

He continued, “And we’ve never used it before, which is really extraordinary. And so to use it for the first time, to actually call a convention of states, I would say it’s in the top tier of historic moments in American constitutional history.”

Get your own copy of the U.S. Constitution, “The Politically Incorr...

Views: 1683

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

After talking to several "respected" conservatives I personally think we would not be well served by a constitutional convention.There are several good reasons why, I'll post some of them at a later date.

I believe the current push for a "convention" is for an Article V Convention of the States, NOT a Constitutional Convention which, at least according to my understanding, are two different animals.  According to Publius Huldah and Bob Livingston of PersonalLiberty, a COS is very dangerous and unnecessary.

Nullification worked when enough states refused to follow the Bill that called for the REAL ID. Refusing works.

A small step but it is the first

A Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) can cover and/or cover-up many things.  There will not be any 'cherry-picked' discussions that we care about during a Con-Con.  Only 'cherry-picked' agendas.  I would not be a bit surprised if an entity attempted to sneak in sharia law agendas -  as there have been several attempts to impose it upon our courts, schools, economic, multimedia and legal systems.  We need to keep fighting for the United States Constitution, and that for which it stands, and see to it that the leaders obey it.  

July 2010 

Three Things About Islam: 

January 2015  

The Obama Regime Cares More About Protecting a Fake Image Of Islam Than Protecting Americans:

August 2012 

Political Islam:  

Bill Of Rights Repeal? 

Americans Support Repealing Bill Of Rights:  

January 2015           

DOJ Warns You Can Be Prosecuted For Saying Bad Things About Islam On Social Media:  

This may sound like nit-picking but I feel it is important to get this straight:  this is NOT a Constitutional Convention that is being pushed - it is an Article V Convention of the States, which is quite different.  In either case, however, a great deal of danger accompanies them, as you stated, Morning Star.

I don't think that you are nit-picking. You are correct in your assertion.  From what I can discern, a Con Con and an Article V, are different junk yard dogs but with the same fleas.  ;-) 

I believe that in this age of political chicanery a call for an Article V Convention is a backdoor-mat for a Con Con whereas in an Article V, the States: "... shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as a part of this Constitution, ... as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."   

Customarily, a Con Con is an informal and uncodified procedural agreement that is followed by the institutions of a State.  Politically, a Con Con is a meeting of delegates to adopt a new constitution or revise an existing constitution.  A recent example of this activity is in Texas with the founding of a new Sharia Tribunal Court.  Thank goodness it was not ratified or codified for the entire nation. 

However there is a new socialist proposal from California for a nationwide ban for civilians to not have personal body armor (although not via a 'convention', it can still work it's way through to becoming a national Law and/or may very well end up at a Convention Table):


Nationwide Ban On Personal Body Armor Proposed In Congress, 10 Years Imprisonment For Possession:  

H.R. 378 Responsible Body Armor Possession Act:  

In another related article, a Supreme Court Justice came out of retirement in the push for an Article V Convention: 

The Foolish Push For Article V Convention: 

"Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens had a suggestion to gut the second amendment.  He wanted to reverse the Supreme Court decision that upheld our right to keep a gun at home for self-protection.  Justice Stevens' plan to achieve his goal is deceptively simple; he just calls for adding five itty-bitty words: 'when serving in the militia'."  

Nonetheless, the goal of foreign and domestic enemies is to change our Constitution, 'by any means necessary'. 

Thanks for your 'due diligence' and guidance Judith.  

In this case, just a wild guess... 

Because the enemy (Obama) of my enemies (other rich competitors) is my puppet (Obama). 

Barbara. I think you've answered your own question. It is the rich elite who control the nations of the world through the control of their monetary system. Obama and other leaders in consult with these money Barrons have been promised positions of leadership in the NWO. The goal being to destroy capitalism, usher in socialism . Reconfigure the nations of the world along with the monetary system. This plan is hundreds of years old starting with the Rothchilds who came to the conclusion that it was better to lend to Nations than individuals. Read world history and not the "Governments official version". Our officials are but lap dogs of the elite and do their bidding in lock step. How could someone like Obama be elected? No vetting, no experience, proven Socialist background. Associated with left wing terrorists and radicals... There is NO way he could become President unless the powers that be planned it. If people want to label me a conspirisy theroist so be it. I will not believe our leaders or the news media, there's too much evidence to the contrary. Americans have been being brainwashed for decades thought a corruption of history and the corruption of our educational system. The current philosophy of the day. "Relativusum" is the means for our shift in thinking towards socialism and dangerious in my opinion. The destruction of capitalism and the institution of the Nanny state where we are defendant on the government is the goal. I do not believe the masses will
Wake up until it's too late and their liberties have been taken away . Just my opinion, but that's been our direction for some time.

I hate to say it Mr. Regan, but you hit the nail on the head right there.

You've managed to encapsulate 200 years of conspiracy into one short paragraph, Good job.

Bottom line to Barbara's question: Soro's hates Israel and the Jews just as much as the Muslims do.

He and the other money managers will destroy any country that stands in their way of the NWO. And that includes the U.S.A.

imo, a "con-con" is in deed a true CON job upon we the people, who DO have already the means via CLGJs to make right what has gone so wrong in AMerica (by design of those some consider "elite") in very short order, both LAWFULLY & PEACEFULLY! 

Re:  John Darash use of different name, i think that a minor issue; i sometimes use a different name based on the project, venue or people i'm dealing with at the time. ie my chosen name here. Don't think that has much bearing on the Heart of any matter, just sayin'...   Except use of ALLCAPS for "strawman", corporate fictitious "person(s)" which DOES have extreme significance in "legal" terms.  KNOWing who (and WHose!) one is and is NOT, is in deed most significant, imo.     I prefer to view the positive in anyone or any thing, until very good evidence to contrary presents itself; no one is "perfect", each is BEcoming and DOing the best one can, based on one's knowledge & experience at the time, again my opinion, of course.  Even "evil" within & without is used to shape one's growth journey in this gift of Life we each are Given.  Have we not been AWAKENED by what most consider grave challenges these days?  Each one CHOOSES how to BE and DO and bears consequences of same, moment by moment, sometimes "eternally"... Right?  So THankful for Grace & forgiveness and ability to make new, better choices; are we not each co-creators of our world, affecting ourselves and many others?

Blessings 2 all Liberty-lovers & those affected by same  :D

I hate to beat a dead horse but on the chance we're missing something I'd like to keep this discussion going. I'd like to post a link to a speech given by Michael Farris. His version of how things are done at an Article V Convention of States is different than Publius Huldah's. IMO we have to be sure we're not missing an opportunity. Weren't there a few very Constitutionally knowledgeable members here? Please understand I'm not trying to be argumentative , I would simply hate to learn later we missed a chance to act.                            



Old Rooster created this Ning Network.

This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Fox News

Tech Notes

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


1. Click on State Groups tab at the top of the page.
2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
4. Look for link to join Your State Group near the top of the State Groups page.
5. Click on it.

Follow the Prompts

How to post "live" URL in posts at PFA............. Adding URLs in blog posts that are not "live" is a waste of everyone's time.....
Here's how....if anyone has better guidance send to me.....
First........type your text entry into the post block to include typing or paste the URL you want us to view........when finished with the text, highlight and copy the URL in the text.......then click the "add hyperlink" tool in the B, I, U box just above the text entry, after clicking, a window will open asking for the URL...paste the URL in the box and click "OK". You have now made the URL "live" shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......


© 2019   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service