The following by Senator Blutarsky is in response to an earlier post by John DeMayo:


we the people-2Nothing to “debate”, Mr DeMayo…a con-con at this point, is like taking a butter knife to a gunfight. Having the moral and philosophical “high ground” does not constitute a formula for success.

Ask the men at the Alamo…….or Jews at the Warsaw ghettos. I will add just a few links for readers here to consider, with a snip from each.

“Not only is an Article V constitutional convention not the right answer, it is the bullet to a loaded revolver pointed at the Constitution.


Before going down the rabbit hole, it is important to understand that calling for a convention to amend the Constitution with amendments shows absence in sound judgment.

Think about it… The NSA, NDAA, ObamaCare, Patriot Act, EPA, DOE, every war since the 1940s, federal gun laws, etc. are all unconstitutional. These laws and agencies all fly in the face of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

Did the federal government come to a grinding halt simply because of those amendments? Since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the American government has been run lawlessly. Some call the Constitution ineffective.

Americans must ask themselves: Is the Constitution ineffective, or do we have a lawless, disobedient federal government? If the answer is the latter, which it is, then Americans should see little refuge in additional amendments, which the lawless, disobedient feds will simply continue to ignore.”

Read more:
Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter

“The whole process is a prescription for political chaos, controversy and confrontation. Alas, I don’t see any George Washingtons, James Madisons, Ben Franklins or Alexander Hamiltons around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I’m worried about the men who think they can.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and author of 20 books. She is the co-author, with George Neumayr, of the New York Times Best-Seller titled “No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.”
The Article V Convention Scam

“So, Levin and the other Article V convention advocates try to walk the tightrope of deceptively assuring those of us who are concerned about harmful changes to the Constitution that such a convention would be “a limited purpose convention” (page 16 of The Liberty Amendments) while at the same time truthfully portraying an Article V convention as included in the Constitution for the purpose of making the changes necessary for reining in an oppressive government.

So, that’s the scam. In order to gain the necessary widespread support from both voters and state legislators for their inherently risky attempt to solve the problem of an out-of-control (unconstitutional) government by means of an Article V convention, the Article V convention advocates need to fool huge numbers of people into believing that the provision for Article V conventions was included in the Constitution only for making limited changes.

Since it is a God-given “Right of the People” “to alter or to abolish [our government], and to institute new Government,” and since Article V provides a constitutional method for bringing about a convention of the sovereign people of the United States for achieving this, we have to agree that the proponents of an Article V convention have the right to pursue their goal of bringing about such an unlimited convention; but, we must interject immediately, such an unlimited convention would be extremely dangerous to the Constitution, given the lack of knowledge of and lack of commitment to the Constitution on the part of most of the voters and/or legislators who would determine the composition of the delegates.

And, of course, such an unlimited convention would have the option of changing the method for ratifying its proposed changes, just as the Constitutional Convention of 1787 did.

Our problem is not the Constitution. Our problem is a federal government that is operating outside the confines of the Constitution. The solution is to bring the federal government back into compliance with the Constitution through voter education campaigns and state nullification laws. “

The old saying “” be careful what you ask for – you just might get it ” , certainly applies here. Wise leaders know to pick a fight they can win.

A con-con would, really, be only treating “symptoms”, as the core problem is flagrant abuse of the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights, for decades. And you basically, expect the same groups who have the Constitution on a death watch already, to fix such? Laughable…….naive.

Nullification and enforcement are the winnable options, not a badly misguided con-con nightmare.

“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
Dr. Martin Luther King

7 responses

  1. When arguing against a position it seems proper to clearly state the position before mis characterizing…your “clips” I believe falsely explain what the largest article 5 movement proposes. Please read the “Convention of States” FAQ’s. I have included a copy here for your awareness. Thanks!

    Frequently Asked Questions
    admin March 1, 2014 Learn, No Comments
    Why Do We Want to Call a Convention of States?

    Washington, D.C., is broken. The federal government is spending this country into the ground, seizing power from the states and taking liberty from the people. It’s time American citizens took a stand and made a legitimate effort to curb the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason insisted that the States be given the power to amend the Constitution to curb abuses by Washington, D.C. The Founders gave us the solution for today. It is time to use their solution.

    You can watch Michael Farris explain the problem here.

    What is a Convention of States?

    A convention of states is a convention called by the state legislatures for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. They are given power to do this under Article V of the Constitution. It is not a constitutional convention. It cannot throw out the Constitution because its authority is derived from the Constitution.

    We explain a Convention of States further here.

    How Do the State Legislatures Call a Convention of States?

    Thirty-four state legislatures must pass a bill called an “application” calling for a convention of states. The applications must request a Convention of the States for the same subject matter. The applications are delivered to Congress.

    Can Congress Block a Convention of States?

    No. As long as each states applies for a convention that deals with the same issue (i.e., limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government), Congress must call the convention. Congress can name the place and the time for the convention to begin. If it fails to exercise this power reasonably, either the courts or the states themselves can override Congressional inaction.

    Article V says Congress “calls” the convention. Does this mean they control the Convention and choose the delegates?

    No. The Founders made this very clear. Once 34 states apply, Congress has no discretion whether to call a convention and no control over the delegates (see Federalist No. 85, see paragraph beginning “In opposition to the probability…”). George Mason proposed to add the Convention of States provision to Article V because he thought Congress had too much control over the amendment process. The Framers unanimously agreed with him. It makes no sense to interpret Article V to give more power to Congress, when the whole point was to take power away.

    This claim that Congress gets to choose the delegates also goes against common sense. Just because one party “calls” a convention, doesn’t it mean it gets to choose the delegates for the other parties. Think about it. Virginia called the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Did it get to choose the delegates for Massachusetts? Of course not. Massachusetts did. Each state chooses its own delegates; it doesn’t matter who calls the convention. This is Agency law 101 and basic common sense.

    How Do States Choose Their Delegates?

    States are free to develop their own selection process for choosing their delegates—properly called “commissioners.” Historically, the most common method used was an election by a joint session of both houses of the state legislature.

    Rob Natelson explains this further in his handbook (page 14).

    What Happens at a Convention of States?

    Commissioners from each state propose, discuss, and vote on amendments to the Constitution. All amendments the convention passes by a simple majority of the states will be sent back to the states for ratification. Each state has one vote at the Convention. If North Carolina sends seven commissioners and Nebraska sends nine, each state must caucus on each vote. North Carolina’s one vote would be cast when at least four of its commissioners agreed. Nebraska’s vote would be cast by the agreement of at least five of its commissioners.

    How are Proposed Amendments Ratified?

    Thirty-eight states must ratify any proposed amendments. Once states ratify, the amendments become part of the Constitution. Normally, Congress designates the state legislatures as the ratifying body—but it may choose to have the states call ratifying conventions. If so, an election by the people would be held in each state to choose delegates to the ratifying conventions.

    How Do We Know How a Convention of States Will Work?

    Interstate conventions were common during the Founding era, and the procedures and rules for such conventions were widely accepted. Thus, we can know how a Convention of States would operate by studying the historical record. Dr. Rob Natelson has done extensive research on this topic, and more details can be found here and here.

    Is a Convention of the States Safe?

    Yes. The ratification process ensures no amendments will be passed that do not reflect the desires of the American people. In addition to this, there are numerous other safeguards against a “runaway convention,” all of which can be found in the Handbook.

    You can also read this page, watch this video, or read page 17 of Prof. Rob Natelson’s handbook.

    If the Federal Government Ignores the Current Constitution, Why Would They Adhere to an Amended Constitution?

    When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology. Even though it is obvious to all reasonable Americans that the federal government is violating the original meaning of the Constitution, Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language. Amendments at a Convention of States today will be written with the current state of the federal government in mind. The language they use for these amendments will be unequivocal. There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be legitimately broken. For example, the General Welfare Clause could be amended to add this phrase: “If the States have the jurisdiction to spend money on a subject matter, Congress may not tax or spend for this same subject matter.” This provision would have made it clear that Obamacare was unconstitutional.

    In addition to this, it should be noted that the federal government has not violated the amendments passed in recent years. Women’s suffrage, for example, has been 100% upheld.

    What is the Plan?

    The COS Project’s plan is twofold:

    1) We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment. Instead of calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), we want to call a convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. Our approach is similar to the adoption of the Bill of Rights. We seek a package of amendments to rein in the abuses of power by all branches of the federal government.

    2) We believe the grassroots is the key to calling a successful convention. The goal is to build a political operation in a minimum of 40 states, getting 100 people to volunteer in at least 75% of the state legislative districts—3000 districts. We believe this is very doable. The most important task is to find our 3000 District Captains. The support of the American people will ensure the success of this project.

    A good overview of the plan is available here and here.

    Who is Citizens for Self-Governance and How Do They Relate to the COS Project?

    Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) is the parent organization of the Convention of States Project. They provide the resources and experience necessary to make this project a success. The CSG mission is as follows:

    “Self-governance must be restored across America. Citizens for Self-Governance will elevate awareness and provide resources, advocacy, and education to grassroots organizations and individuals exercising their rights to govern themselves.”

    CSG sees the COS Project as a means by which they can accomplish this mission.

    Visit their website at

    1. Senator_Blutarsky

      Kevin – here is a ” Q&A ” snippet – see the full link to the article, with embedded links as additional source material. Answer those, and get back to us…………

      ” Q: How are amendments to the federal Constitution made?
      A: Article V of our Constitution provides two method of amending the Constitution:

      1. Congress proposes amendments and presents them to the States for ratification; or
      2. When 2/3 of the States apply for it, Congress calls a convention to propose amendments.

      Q: Which method was used for our existing 27 amendments?
      A: The first method was used for all 27 amendments including the Bill of Rights which were introduced into Congress by James Madison.[3]

      Q: Is there a difference between a constitutional convention, con con, or Article V Convention?
      A: These names have been used interchangeably during the last 50 years.

      Q: What is a “convention of states”?
      A: That is what the people pushing for an Article V convention now call it.

      Q: Who is behind this push for an Art. V convention?
      A:The push to impose a new Constitution by means of an Article V convention (and using a “balanced budget” amendment as justification) started in 1963 with the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. 1 Today, it is pushed by:

      • Hundreds of progressive (Marxist) groups listed here
      • George Soros
      • Michael Farris, Esq., of “Convention of States” (COS), and author of the “parental rights” amendment which delegates power over children to the federal & state governments.
      • Nick Dranias, Esq., of the Compact for America, Inc., whose “balanced budget” amendment imposes a new national sales or VAT tax on the American People.
      • Former law professor, Rob Natelson.
      • Nullification denier and law professor, Randy Barnett, who proposes an amendment which delegates to Congress the power to regulate “emissions” [EPA now exercises usurped powers].
      • Nullification denier and birther denier, Mark Levin, Esq., whose “balanced budget” amendment legalizes Congress’ unconstitutional spending and does nothing to control the debt.

      Q: Why do they want an Article V Convention?
      A: The only way to get rid of our existing Constitution and Bill of Rights is to have an Article V convention where they can re-write our Constitution. Jordan Sillars, Communications Director for Michael Farris’ “Convention of States,” 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].

      Q: How can they impose a new constitution if ¾ of the States don’t agree to it?
      A: Only amendments require ratification by ¾ of the States (see Art. V). But a new constitution would have its own new method of ratification – it can be whatever the drafters want. For example, the proposed Constitution for the New states of America is ratified by a referendum called by the President.

      Q: Can a convention be stopped from proposing a new Constitution?
      A: No. Once the delegates are duly appointed & assembled,they are acting under the inherent authority of A People to alter or abolish their form of government [Declaration of Independence, 2nd para]; and have the sovereign power to do whatever they want at the convention.

      Q: Is this what happened at the Federal Convention of 1787?
      A: Yes. Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation, 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.” But the delegates ignored this limitation and wrote a new Constitution. Because of this inherent authority of delegates, it is impossible to stop it from happening at another convention. And George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won’t be there to protect you.

      Q: Did the delegates at the Convention of 1787 introduce a new mode of ratification for the new Constitution?
      A: Yes. The Articles of Confederation required the approval of all 13 States for amendments to the Articles to be ratified. But the new Constitution provided it would become effective if only 9 of the 13 States ratified it (Art. VII, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution).

      Q: Who would be delegates at a Convention?
      A: Either Congress appoints whomever they want; or State governments appoint whomever they want.

      Q: Who would be chairman at a convention?
      A: We don’t know. But chairmen have lots of power–and George Washington won’t be chairman.

      Q: But if the States appoint the delegates, won’t a convention be safe?
      A: Who controls your State? They will be the ones who choose the delegates if Congress permits the States to appoint delegates. Are the people who control your State virtuous, wise, honest, and true? [Tell PH if they are, so she can move there.]

      Q: But aren’t the States the ones to rein in the federal government?
      A: They should have been, but the States have become major consumers of federal funding. Federal funds make up almost 35% of the States’ annual budgets. The States don’t want to rein in the feds – they don’t want to lose their federal funding. ”

      end snip – full article-

      “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.”
      ~ H. L. Mencken

  2. You are right on in your assumptions that a Constitutional Convention is not the smartest course to follow to cure the ills in Washington, D C. Neither is the ballot box a good option anymore. Elections are rigged or bought outright at every turn, and nothing is done about it.
    In my considered opinion, there are only two ways to cure our current problems with a lawless, illegal government. Another 1776 Revolution or wholesale Articles of Impeachment against the culprits in BOTH parties.
    The first is not likely as long as most folks can remain reasonably comfortable and be allowed to watch their “reality’ shows on TV. The second merely takes only ONE member of the house of Representatives to put his/her precious $174,000 a year job on the line to start the ball rolling toward a good house cleaning. I have heard an immense amount of rhetoric from our reps. on the subject, but have seen NO RESULTS. The people who now wield the power intend to keep it and continue to line their pocket at our expense, and all the while continue to further subjugate the average citizen.
    Can you realistically even imagine Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Reid, or even Obama, voluntarily retiring? For the life of me, I cannot. Even as I write this, Obama and his supporters (henchmen is more correct) are fervently searching for an avenue to allow his third term. Is that not a sobering thought?
    We do not need, nay we dare not, call for a Constitutional Convention where ALL of the provisions of the original document are on the table. The Koch Bros., Adelman, Soros, the Rothchilds, and many more big money families would love to buy that venue, and most certainly would.
    We still have the impeachment process if we will but use it, and Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and supporting the Syrian rebels who are aligned with Muslim terrorists worldwide are all impeachable offenses, just like forging documents to prove citizenship when you are foreign born. There are so many cases where outright lawlessness on the part of this administration should be our number one priority, it is pathetic. The Congress is too timid to even take Obama’s “i have a pen and a phone, I don’t need Congress” quote and jam it in his ear(or elsewhere) He is making them obsolete by getting away with the may changes to the ACA without Congress’s approval, which is unconstitutional. He reigns like a King because our Congress does not have the backbone to stop him. Neither does the American public, so the beat goes on, unaltered or deterred.

    Jack Cavenah

  3. Frank Williford

    Many good reasons have already been stated as to why a con-con is a bad idea. It is possible to lose complete control of the process to special interests. For those who do not believe this let me clearly state it has already happened once.

    Yes, the convention that drafted the present Constitution was created and charged with the responsibility of amending the Articles of Confederation. It did not take them long to start ignoring their charge and start moving in another direction. The change of direction which resulted in a draft of our present Constitution happened to work out well but that was only because the convention delegates just happened to be composed of the best educated and most experienced men in America who were driven by a vision and not self-interest.

    This is hardly the case today. Many of the people in power in Washington today are not clear thinkers and the results of whatever education they received often display a contorted view of reality and exceedingly bad judgement. Retaining power and furthering self-interest remains the top priority. Does anyone reading this believe the persons who are selected for the convention delegates will abandon personal aspirations in favor of what is best for the country long term. Of the elected representatives presently serving in Washington, I can name less than a dozen who would even fleetingly consider the country first to the total exclusion of their own desires.

    1. Well said and supports my views stated here earlier to the hilt.

      Jack Cavenah

  4. God bless those who stand against an Article V Convention. I’ve watched the Convention of States and know their players – all I ask the public to do is follow the money. This is another project supported by neo-con Leo Linbeck III of Houston TX who also created the Healthcare Compact promoted by the Tea Party Patriots. Soros is financing the left hand of this monster and is also pushing for a Article V Convention. Does it make sense to you that the left would be pushing for anything the right wants? Check your facts folks as the real purpose of this convention is to manipulate our Constitution beyond recognition and obliterate any freedoms we have remaining.

    shows the relationship of Linbeck to Citizens for Self-Governance/COS

%d bloggers like this: