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

The purpose of the convention clause of Article V of the US Constitution is to give the people an opportunity to offer solutions to a recalcitrant Congress unwilling or unable to act. When corruption has become institutionalized into the Federal government, the States can petition for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, a process occurring outside of Washington, bypassing the entrenched corruption. Before becoming law, amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States, eliminating any extreme or radical proposals.

Common sense Ideas like a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would help to root out abuse and cronyism inherent in the system today, could be introduced and seriously debated through our nations first Article V Convention. Delegates would assemble, C-SPAN would cover it, we would all get educated a little more and our representative democracy reinvigorated. There is a critical reason why the convention clause exists, and the Framers put it there not to be ignored, but to provide a "peaceful alternative to a violent revolt" during times of strong popular frustration with the Federal government.

Constitutional scholars believe we have been denied our right to a convention. To date, there have been 754 valid applications from all 50 States for an Article V Convention that have hit the doorstep of Congress, far surpassing the two-thirds threshold needed (34). The research documenting these applications was completed last year by an intrepid non-partisan group of legal experts, a retired Michigan Supreme Court Justice and impassioned citizens from every State. The Friends of Article V Convention (FOAVC.org) assert that Congress has not only failed in its non-discretionary duty to issue the call, but is purposefully quashing the convention as a perceived (and real) threat to its power.

Please check it out for yourself at www.foavc.org

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Nick
• and
• Paul
• Show
• Byron
• DeLear
• Article
• Convention
• Constituional
• constitution
• trillion
• dollar
• bailout
• Washington
• Wall
• Street
• collusion
• amendment

[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.

[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

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 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

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.

[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

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.

[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]

@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.

[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.