Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

@TheSarcasticSoB You are correct TheSarcasticSoB. It is "too dangerous." Looks like the King was right. I suggest therefore we immediately take steps to void the Constitution as that is what you are suggesting and return ourselves to the rule of England. How do we suggest we begin this? After all in the final analysis all we need do is inform the British we are terminating the terms of the Treaty of Paris so I guess it can be done at any time. By the way do you think we can accomplish this in time to get in on the British holding their own convention to write their own version of a Constitution? This is being discussed now in Britain. Meantime they are holding a convention in Ireland which just about completes the cycle of nearly every nation on earth holding a convention including communist nations, so-called terrorist nations and so forth and none seemed to feel the matter was "too dangerous." All nations seem to have come out for the better--but us, who invented the convention--for us it is too dangerous. Yeah we'd best go back to being just subjects instead of citizens--or maybe someone of us should consider leaving the nation if they don't like its form of government.

1 day, 3 hours ago on


@John Louis A full and complete response to this thoughtful response could take hours. Suffice to say the courts have ruled on many issues about Article V. For the purposes of this discussion let's assume two facts: (1) the court is not a group of idiots and (2) they can read. Hence, when they decide for example what is the requirement for the proposing body as to quorum and so forth in proposing an amendment and DON'T EXCLUDE FROM THAT CONCLUSION THE CONVENTION then it must be assumed the ruling applies to both proposing bodies. If it does not then the court is obligated to say so which it never has. Thus when the court has ruled on there being additions permitted to the words of the Constitution (which is where all the mischief comes in as people add their own interpretations, i.e., additions) and the court says this is not allowed and it clearly discusses the proposal process in the ruling then no other conclusion is possible if you accept facts (1) and (2). The reason for this is the principle of equal protection under the law found in the 14th Amendment. The court has explicitly stated unless there is a reasonable basis for discrimination there can be no discrimination. Hence, as proposal of amendments is proposal of amendments there is no distinction between Congress and the convention: their tasks are constitutionally identical. Hence any ruling applying to one must apply to the other. The court was given the chance to make such distinction in my two federal lawsuits and choose not to.

As to the people being the source for the Constitution the court has held that view consistently. Indeed it is that view that removes most of the doubt in question because as the court has directly ruled, long before the 14th Amendment that the people, not the states, are sovereign, meaning much of what is suggested the states can do at a convention simply is incorrect. 

By the way your final quote paraphrases one of the most important rulings in the convention process. I think you've read this rulings and merely wish to see if I have so I will end here. Professor Levinson and many others have proposed many ideas about a convention as scholarly exercises. All share one common trait: they don't deal with existing court rulings which without fail knocks out their propositions. The quote you paraphrase is the one that does much of that work.

2 weeks, 2 days ago on


Mr. Kettl makes several points in his column about an Article V Convention. He mentions 600+ applications. The actual figure is now 746 applications from 49 states. They can be read at Mr. Kettl's main argument is no one knows anything about the convention or how it is called and so forth. A complete answer in rebuttal would take pages to write. Suffice to say he is incorrect. The Supreme Court in several decisions has answered nearly all questions about a convention. Moreover Mr. Kettl fails to mention that for answers to be found they do not have reside just in Article V. As with all constitutional issues, the entire Constitution must be satisfied and hence must be applied to any question about a convention. The bottom line answer to his objections is the 14th Amendment which mandates equal protection under the law. Hence, whatever is applied to Congress, in so far as the amendment process is concerned, equally applies to the convention. With this constitutional fact established, and the courts have addressed this, all questions about the convention, its process and so forth are already answered.

3 weeks, 5 days ago on


@WesternFreePress@Average joe@ShirleySpellerberg

Since we are sharing articles please read the material I have written also:

  1. Rebuttal to Amending the Constitution by Convention--A Complete View of the Founders' Plan - May 22, 2011
  2. Rebuttal to Amending the Constitution by Convention--A Complete View of the Founders' Plan (Endnote Version) - May 22, 2011
  3. A Question of Accuracy; Shall The John Birch Society Decide The Constitution? - January 20, 2009
  4. A Question of Accuracy; Shall the John Birch Society Decide the Constitution? Part II - January 24, 2009
  5. A Question of Accuracy; What Else Can You Tell Me About the Burger Letter? - February 20, 2009
  6. Article V and the Tenth Amendment Movement - March 5, 2009
  7. The MIAC Report and An Article V Convention - March 30, 2009
  8. Bob Schulz and An Article V Convention - April 13, 2009
  9. Walter Williams, Tea Parties and Article V - April 13, 2009
  10. A Federalism Amendment; Some Corrections To The Record - April 23, 2009
  11. Proposing the Constitution and Article V; What if They Had No Choice - May 23, 2009
  12. The Heart of the Attacker - June 8, 2009
  13. The Rasmussen Poll - June 15, 2009
  14. An Article V Convention Call; Tennis Anyone? - August 8, 2009
  15. The Matter is Pretty Clear Now - November 3, 2009
  16. An Article V Application; The States' Tenth Amendment Rights in Action - December 21, 2009
  17. An Article V Convention; Exposing the Really Bad Ideas - January 15, 2010
  18. The Master Plan - February 26, 2010
  19. An Article V Convention; What Else I wanted to tell Mike Church - April 7, 2010
  20. Phyllis Schlafly and Madison; Yet Another Lie By Phyllis Schlafly - April 21, 2010
  21. The Article V Convention; What Should the JBS Be Saying - June 20, 2010
  22. The Why of An Article V Convention - July 10, 2010
  23. The Misconstrued Article V Application; The Misinformed Article V Rescission - August 21, 2010
  24. Noland Chart Version of Symposium Speech - September 19, 2010
  25. Cooley Law School Review Article-Symposium Speech
  26. The Law and The Article V Convention - September 26, 2010
  27. Is Rand Paul Sincere - January 22, 2011
  28. The Ten Point Mythology of A Runaway Convention - March 2, 2011
  29. Answers to Mrs. Schlafly's Twenty Questions About a Constitutional Convention - April 25, 2011
  30. Let's Leave the Constitution As Is - April 16, 2011
  31. An Announcement - July 19, 2011
  32. The Conconcon; Wrong Name, Right Time - August 16, 2011
  33. The Truth - September 22, 2011
  34. Opening Remarks - September 22, 2011
  35. The Article V Convention: Discussing the Reality versus the Fantasy
  36. The Article V Convention (Nolan Chart Version)
  37. The ALEC Report
  38. My Response to Robert Thorpe
  39. Holder Begins Criminal Investigation Regarding Article V Convention
  40. A Case Study in Same Subject Convention
  41. A Limited Article V Convention
  42. FBI Kills Article V Convention
  43. The Strange Case of Senator Mike Gravel
  44. Why Romney Lost
  45. The 1973 ABA Report; The First Stab At The Constitution
  46. ArticleV Seeks Congressional Count of Applications
  47. The Diabolical Plot of Compact For America
  48. Congress Sets State Application Count As Zero; Passes Law Mandating Delegate Elections
  49. Dan Marks Sends Application Request Letter To Senate; A Response To Mr. Boyle
  50. Dan Marks Okays House Committee Review; Gohmert Notified
  51. Liberty Amendments Miss the "Mark"
  52. Vieira's Titanic; Ignoring the Facts about an Article V Convention
  53. AVC and Congress, the Continuing Saga

2 months, 3 weeks ago on Arizona may be early leader in call for Article V convention of states