Byron DeLear on Article V Convention interviewed by The Nick and Paul Show

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

A new convention could not re-write the rules of ratification. To do so would be to throw the current constitution away and form a new government and as such each state would have the option of joining the new government or being a new independent country. Come to think of it, you don't need congress to call a convention to do that, it could be done now without congress calling a convention. The people could call a convention outside the law if we plan to just throw the law away.

[424werter]

@GuRiRu Exactly; a Con-Con (which hasn't been done since 1787) could very well Destroy America. Considering the suspension of States Ratification and the "Progressive" mindset' rampant in the Agendized Paid For Politifo's of today, it is almost a Certainty. The Con-Con Route is to be Avoided at all Cost'.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

By that logic Congress "could very well Destroy America". By that logic if I see a child trapped in a burning car I should not help even if the law says I should for fear that that child would grow up and "could very well Destroy America". Either the constitution is right and we must call a convention or the constitution means nothing in which case you've already lost all your freedoms protected in the bill of rights.

[424werter]

@GuRiRu Correct! The Flaw in Article V is that once convened, the entire Constitution could be scrapped. The viable alternative is the by Congressional Amendments period. Erase the Con-Con option from your mind period.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

No, you are wrong. Where in the constitution does it say a convention could scrap the constitution? It doesn't. All a convention can do is the same as congress can do, propose amendments or not propose amendments. Once that is done we all sit and wait to see if the states will ratify those amendments. Congress will never propose to repeal the 16th amendment so it has to come from a convention. Besides, the needed number of applications has already been reached.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

Wow, the third video is so wrong I'm actually wondering if I should show this to my students as a pop quiz. The 1787 convention was legally empowered to write a new constitution. Even once that new constitution was written it has to be ratified by the states. Basic American History 101. A convention to satisfy article V wouldn't even have that much power and every proposed amendment coming out of convention Must be ratified first. That is iron clad.

[GuRiRu]

But then does it not matter that Congress is in violation of the law in refusing to call a convention and the courts have essentially given congress veto power of the constitution? If enough applications have been sent then Congress has no choice, they must call a convention or persist in violation of the law.

[GuRiRu]

As long as Congress does not call for a convention, they are VIOLATING the constitution they are sworn to uphold in order to retain office. As long as they do not call a convention, and as long any YOU do not want them to call a convention then you and them are UNPATRIOTIC. Congress and any of their supporters on this have committed TREASON against the constitution of the United States.

[424werter]

Such a Convention could totally destroy our Constitution & Bill of Rights. There Be No Way to Stop or Repeal any Changes the Delegates Decide'. We could awaken to an America without the checks & balance' we now enjoy. With so many "Progressive" activists in both Houses you would certainly lose our Bill of Rights. This Guy is Full o Crap~!

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

You are wrong. Any proposals submitted to the states by the delegates of the convention would still need 3/4 of the states to ratify. Currently that means that 38 states would need to ratify anything coming out of the convention. But instead of obeying the law, we just tolerate congress taking more power unconstitutionally.

[424werter]

@GuRiRu True, but the States are online before the Con'Con' commences and once opened for Amendments, any Constitutional Article can be changed. bye-bye' Second Amendment and more.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

It isn't a "constitutional Convention". It is a convention to amend the constitution. Do you really believe that 34 state delegations would vote in the convention to repeal the second amendment? Even if they did and proposed the repeal, do you really believe that 38 states would ratify it? Even if say New York voted to propose the repeal of the second amendment and it passed in convention, that does not mean that the New York state legislature would vote to ratify.

[424werter]

@GuRiRu The States of today, may well ratify, what is essentially an unwholesome re-wording of much of our Beloved Constitution. Are many not now following the un-American, UN mandated "Agenda 21"? International Law is a serious consideration since America has surrendered much of our Sovereighnty to Supra-National Org's. down to even the Local Level. '1787 convention did a Good job; but nowadays ? ?

[424werter]

@GuRiRu * Check out Youtube "Beware Article V" (link came back as "error" repeatedly.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

I watched it. There seems to be a lot of inaccurate information in it. According to the Constitution, the state legislatures must call for delegates to be elected. Sure, a convention can discuss any amendment they want but they have to vote in state blocks, and even if an amendment is passed it has to be ratified. There is nothing to fear here, it is the people's right under the constitution and congress is breaking the law by not calling one.

[424werter]

@GuRiRu * Right' "according to the constitution" (as it now stands) but what if it becomes a "runaway Con-Con" as in 1778 and they change or nullify the Ratification Process? 'Even nullifying 3/4 States Ratification altogether? Methinks you didin't view all 4 video's. Please elaborate on "inaccurate information"; after digesting the other viddies.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

It was alleged in the video that more applications for a convention need to be made to trigger one. This is legally not true, 49 states have applied, all that is needed is 34. 39 states have asked for a convention to repeal the 16th amendment ( the one that allows the federal government to steal your money) so even the unconstitutional same topic theory is satisfied and congress should call a convention.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

At 2:08 the speaker in the video claims that Congress has no choice but to call a convention, and anyone reading the constitution would assume that were true based on what the Constitution actually says but a SCOTUS case Coleman V Miller says Congress does in fact have a choice.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

At 3:56 the speaker claims that Congress chooses the place for the convention to meet but this is not true. The Convention delegates choose the place of their meeting. In addition, congress has no power to pay delegates. Congress also can not choose the number of delegates. Each states must have the same number of delegates has house reps according to the 14th amendment. Also, only the state legislature can decide how delegates are chosen.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

At 4:20 the speaker repeats that congress is given a freehand in delegate selection but again this is not true. The individual state legislatures must select the method of choosing delegates and any method other then direct popular election in congressional districts will butt heads with the 14th amendment.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

At 5:20 the speaker claims that it is possible for some states to not have a delegate at the convention but this is not true. The federal courts have agreed that should a convention be called, due to the 14th amendment, each state must be represented by the same number of delegates as they have members in the house of representatives.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

at 6:03 he claims that applications did not try to tell congress which amendments to propose. While this is true of some of the applications, most applications in the first hundred years did in fact state the topic. However, it is also true as the speaker states that the convention could disregard that and propose anything they like on any topic, but again, it all has to be ratified after the convention closes.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

At 9:24 the speaker cites and shows a graphic of a letter purported to have been written by Warren Burger. This letter is a known forgery. I'll be honest, after I saw that, I turned the video off. The other things could have just been mistakes because they didn't do their homework and due diligence but not this. But I'll go ahead and finish the series so I can see what else he says.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

In the second video the speaker assumes that rescinding an application is legally enforceable, it is not. The constitution does not provide for the ability to "take back" an application once it is voted on and sent to congress. But don't worry, Congress has a standing policy to ignore all applications anyway.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

Then the speaker quotes someone from Brigham Young University. Now maybe you trust those polygamists but I don't. These videos are bull. Why did you refer me to them? I did a quick google to find out who the guy is in the video and it turns out he later admitted that he was paid to read from a script and knew at the time that they were making it up. I can't believe this. You're wasting my time.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

The third video has a very strange comment in it. How would allowing the states to hold a convention be like using a nuke to melt an iceburg? Congress has the same powers to propose amendments that a convention would have but we have not problem sending reps and senators to congress every two years. If even the possibility that an amendment could be proposed is to be avoided, then we have to stop congress from meeting.

[424werter]

@GuRiRu Yea! Those acid flashbacks can be a bitch. Try 20-40mg.s of Valium. Still, a Runaway Con-Con did happen in 1778 with Good results. The same scenario today would ruin out freedoms. The Congressional route is the only viable way and Stand Clear of the Poison Laced Kool-Aid of a Congressional Convention. All else is Folly!

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

If that is what you believe then it tells me two things. You are not patriotic to the constitution and think it is only to advise congress and that it has no legal force. It also tells me that we should fear congress just as much as a convention since even the possibility of an amendment being proposed could ruin our freedom. Please remember there are still proposed amendments that have not yet been ratified.

[GuRiRu]

@424werter

The next statement is even worse. If a convention is called to satisfy article v of the constitution it would be nothing like the 1787 convention. The 1787 convention was empowered by law to write a new constitution or amend the articles of confederation. A convention called today would only be empowered by law to propose amendments, the same power congress exercises every single time they meet.

[PQXLR]

The congress doesn't have the power to Refuse!

[megabenbenben]

yay hurray

[megabenbenben]

my name is byron =P