Table of Contents
Format Legend: Author’s inserted comment/emphasis Founding Documents/Father(s) Quote Quoted Article Title, Author & Link Quoted Online Article Excerpts [SNIP]--Jumping from one excerpt to another
Lately I’m seeing a lot of people calling for term limits on Congress as a solution to the corruption in Congress. Saw it on Twitter before I was banned and see it almost daily on Gab. I contend that Devolution is the solution to everything that is currently wrong in our government. Others, like Trevor Winchell, call it The Total Reset Of Everything. By devolving our Constitution back to what it was prior to 1871, it renders moot 99% of the issues we currently have with being governed without our consent, including the frustrations with career Representatives and Senators. And that includes not needing Term Limits. In essence; there are two Constitutions in the United States. The first, initially drafted May 25, 1787, by the Founding Fathers of the newly independent states of the United States and after months of debate and edits, ratified on June 21, 1788. The official start date of this new Constitution was March 4, 1789. And for 82 years, the People of these United States of America were free and independent, aside from a road bump with the Civil War.
That freedom ended in 1871, as a consequence of the debt incurred from fighting the Civil War, when the original “Constitution for the United States of America” was changed to the “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”. At first glance, you might think there is no difference, however capitalization and words matter. Those “insignificant changes” effected by the Organic Act of 1871 put us under the Law of the Admiralty and incorporated the United States (backup PDF here).
But that’s not the point of this paper, other than to point out that absolute meanings of words became relative; read more here and here. If it’s convenient for the government to ignore the textual meaning of the law, then “shall” (imperative) becomes “may” (optional). As in reinterpreting the 2nd Amendment to mean “… may not be infringed”. Same situation with the blurring of “Unalienable” (God-given) with Inalienable” (State-given). With this in mind, I think you will begin to see how Congress can pass a bill in direct violation of the Constitution or as Chief Justice Marshal put it, “repugnant to the Constitution”. And we wonder how the Supreme Court can see their way to deeming something constitutional? Well hold on, because I’m about to show you more examples below.
Before I get to my main point of Devolution, let’s first review the fundamentals behind “Term Limits” and the mode for bringing it about. Bear in mind, Congress, as currently operated, will never impose this upon themselves. But we need to think long and hard about this subject and be ready when we take back our government. Last thing we want to do is apply a band-aid solution and thus create a worse situation.
The Beauty of Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution
In The Lunatic Left Is Getting Desperate, historian and author Thomas J. DiLorenzo, a former professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and a member of the senior faculty of the Mises Institute, wrote:
The legislative appointment of U.S. senators was responsible for the most famous declarations of the states’ rights philosophy of the founders, the nullification philosophy as expressed in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798, authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison respectively…
These Resolves were used as part of the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures’ instructions to their senators to vote to repeal the odious Sedition Act, which effectively prohibited free political speech. The origins of nullification do not lie in attempts to protect slavery or Jim Crow laws, as Zeskind once again falsely claims. Jim Crow laws existed throughout the Northern states for many decades before they were imposed on the South by the Republican Party’s military occupation authorities during Reconstruction.
- John Quincy Adams resigned from the Senate in 1809 because he disagreed with the Massachusetts state legislature’s instructions to him to oppose President James Madison’s trade embargo.
- Senator David Stone of North Carolina resigned in 1814 after his state legislature disapproved of his collaboration with the New England Federalists on several legislative issues.
- Senator Peleg Sprague of Maine resigned in 1835 after opposing his state legislatures’ instructions to oppose the rechartering of the Second Bank of the United States.
- When the U.S. Senate censured President Andrew Jackson for having vetoed the rechartering of the Bank, seven U.S. Senators resigned rather than carry out their state legislatures’ instructions to vote to have Jackson’s censure expunged. One of them was Senator John Tyler of Virginia, who would become President of the United States in 1841.
In other words, the original system of state legislative appointment of U.S. Senators did exactly what it was designed to do: limit the tyrannical proclivities of the central government. As Professor Todd Zywicki of George Mason University Law School has written, “the Senate played an active role in preserving the sovereignty and independent sphere of action of state governments” in the pre-Seventeenth Amendment era prior to 1913. “Rather than delegating lawmaking authority to Washington, state legislators insisted on keeping authority close to home…. As a result, the long-term size of the federal government remained fairly stable and relatively small during the pre-Seventeenth-Amendment era” (emphasis added). (See Todd J. Zywicki, “Beyond the Shell and Husk of History: The History of the Seventeenth Amendment and its Implications for Current Reform Proposals,” Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 45, 1997).
Bottom-line up front, term limits will not hold Senators in check, like the possibility of immediate recall by State legislatures or forced resignation. We need to repeal the 17th Amendment and the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929; doing so vacates the need to legislatively limit the terms of US Senators and Representatives. These two additions to our laws, among other actions by Congress, “broke” our Constitution, so it would make sense to repair that injury. But first, a backgrounder on the subjects of Term Limits and Article V Convention of States (A5C) as well an overview of pros and cons of both:
Deep Dive on Term Limits
Why No Term Limits for Congress?
By Robert Longley, Updated March 03, 2020
Extracted & Redacted for context
Full Article: https://www.thoughtco.com/why-no-term-limits-for-congress-3974547
Historical Precedence for Term Limits
Even before the Revolutionary War, several American colonies applied term limits. For example, under Connecticut’s “Fundamental Orders of 1639,” the colony’s governor was prohibited from serving consecutive terms of only one year, and stating that “no person be chosen Governor above once in two years.” After independence, Pennsylvania’s Constitution of 1776 limited members of the state’s General Assembly from serving more than “four years in seven”.
At the federal level, the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781, set term limits for delegates to the Continental Congress – the equivalent of the modern Congress – mandating that “no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years.”
There Have Been Congressional Term Limits
Senators and Representatives from 23 states faced term limits from 1990 to 1995, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared the practice unconstitutional with its decision in the case of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton.
Term Limits and the Constitution
The Founding Fathers – the people who wrote the Constitution – did, in fact, consider and reject the idea of congressional term limits. In Federalist Papers No. 53, James Madison, father of the Constitution, explained why the Constitutional Convention of 1787 rejected term limits. “[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them,” wrote Madison.
… Murse suggests that Republican Senators Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and David Vitter of Louisiana may just be “milking an idea that would be popular among a broad segment of the population,” by proposing congressional term limits constitutional amendment they know has little if any chance of being enacted…
NOTE: Vitter resigned due to a sex scandal and Toomey, well, he won’t be around much longer after stabbing President Trump and We-The-People in the back.
The Pros of Term Limits
- Limits Corruption: The power and influence gained by being a member of Congress for a long period of time tempt lawmakers to base their votes and policies on their own self-interest, instead of those of the people. Term limits would help prevent corruption and reduce the influence of special interests.
- Congress – It’s Not a Job: Being a member of Congress should not become the office-holder’s career. People who choose to serve in Congress should do so for noble reasons and a true desire to serve the people, not just to have a perpetual well-paying job.
- Bring in Some Fresh Ideas: Any organization – even Congress – thrives when fresh new ideas are offered and encouraged. The same people holding the same seat for years leads to stagnation. Basically, if you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got. New people are more likely to think outside the box.
- Reduce Fundraising Pressure: Both lawmakers and voters dislike the role money plays in the democratic system. Constantly facing reelection, members of Congress feel pressured to devote more time to raising campaign funds than to serving the people. While imposing term limits might not have much of an effect on the overall amount of money in politics, it would at least limit the amount of time elected officials will have to donate to fundraising.
The Cons of Term Limits
- It’s Undemocratic: Term limits would actually limit the right of the people to choose their elected representatives. As evidenced by the number of incumbent lawmakers reelected in every midterm election, many Americans truly like their representative and want them to serve for as long as possible. The mere fact that a person has already served should not deny the voters a chance to return them to office.
- Experience is Valuable: The longer you do a job, the better you get at it. Lawmakers who have earned the trust of the people and proven themselves to be honest and effective leaders should not have their service cut short by term limits. New members of Congress face a steep learning curve. Term limits would reduce the chances of new members growing into the job and becoming better at it.
- Throwing Out the Baby With the Bathwater: Yes, term limits would help eliminate some of the corrupt, power-hungry and incompetent lawmakers, but it would also get rid of all the honest and effective ones.
- Getting to Know Each Other: One of the keys to being a successful legislator is working well with fellow members. Trusts and friendships among members across party lines are essential to progress on controversial legislation. Such politically bipartisan friendships take time to develop. Term limits would reduce the chances for legislators to get to know each other and use those relationships to the advantage of both parties and, of course, the people.
- Won’t Really Limit Corruption: From studying the experiences of state legislatures, political scientists suggest that instead of “draining the swamp,” congressional term limits could actually make corruption in the U.S. Congress worse. Term limit advocates contend that lawmakers who do not have to worry about being reelected will not be tempted to “cave in” to pressure from special interest groups and their lobbyists, and will instead base their votes solely on the merits of the bills before them. However, history has shown that inexperienced, term-limited state legislators are more likely to turn to special interests and lobbyists for information and “direction” or legislation and policy issues. In addition, with term limits, the number of influential former members of Congress would increase dramatically. Many of those former members would—as they do now—go to work for private sector lobbying firms where their deep knowledge of the political process helping to advance special interest causes.
The article goes on to conclude that any legislation enacted by States or by the U.S. Congress will be struck down as unconstitutional. Reason being that the Constitution needs to be amended and per Article V, there’s only two ways to accomplish that:
- Either two-thirds of both houses of Congress draft the proposal and three-fourths of the State Legislatures ratify it — this process has been used at least 28 times, the latest being the Equal Rights Amendment which languished for nearly 3 decades — or,
- The States go it alone with two-thirds of their legislatures drafting the proposal and force Congress to pass the proposal and put it up to all of the States to get three-fourths of them to ratify it. This has never been successfully accomplished, but not for lack of trying as we will see later below.
We know that Congress won’t do it themselves — voluntarily limit their terms… Let me back up and restate that…
We know that a blackmailed and or corrupted Congress won’t do it themselves — voluntarily limit their terms…
So it would seem that the only option we have is for the States to do it via an Article V Convention of States (A5C).
Before you jump on that bandwagon, you might want to consider the pros and cons, the ins and outs of whether Term Limits is the solution we seek. Especially since no one seems to be tying “Devolution” itself as a way to limit the terms. Keep the notion of Devolution in mind as we dive into this subject. I would only posit that Term Limits needs to be taken off the shelf until after we have devolved back to the Constitution as it was prior to 1871, then consider whether it is still necessary.
Now let’s consider the caveats for A5C and be aware that there conflicting motives driving the calls to implement a Convention of States, some of them nefarious… For the swamp, if they can’t beat it, then they’ll co-opt it.
Deep Dive on Article V Convention of States (A5C)
Caveats About A Convention of States
Laying aside the subject of term limits for the moment; any changes to the Constitution must either come from Congress voluntarily or the States must force Congress to convene a convention. Before jumping on the Article V Convention of States bandwagon, we would be wise to consider any caveats. Some groups are sounding alarms against the Article V Convention of States, and they have valid concerns.
Aggressive New Scheme Exposes Article V Convention Lobby
By Christian Gomez, February 18, 2021
Extracted & Redacted for context
Full Article: https://thenewamerican.com/new-aggressive-scheme-exposes-article-v-convention-lobby/
Trojan Horse Alarm
The United States is dangerously close to Congress calling “a convention for proposing amendments” under Article V of the U.S. Constitution — otherwise known as a
constitutional convention, convention of the states, or Article V convention (A5C) — based on a new scheme for aggregating (counting and combining) applications submitted by state legislatures.
Article V provides two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution. The first method states, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses [the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution.” This is the method by which every ratified amendment to the Constitution has been proposed. The second method, which has never been utilized, states: “The Congress […] on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States [or 34 out of 50 states], shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.”
Senate Resolution 29, currently before the General Assembly of Georgia, applies to Congress to call an Article V convention (A5C) to propose a federal Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the Constitution. It purports to aggregate, or combine, the “live,” or outstanding, applications from 27 states that have recently passed applications for a BBA convention with centuries-old applications from six other states that have applied for a supposedly unlimited (plenary) convention. If SR 29 should pass, Georgia would make the 34th state, based on this new aggregation scheme.
However, this raises the question: Why are A5C advocates suddenly looking at new ways to reach the threshold of 34 states, and who’s pushing this new scheme?
Ever since Mark Meckler, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, and radical leftist Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law School professor, co-hosted the Constitutional Convention Conference at Harvard Law School in 2011, the convention lobby has been falsely assuring state legislators that every application for an A5C needs to be the same or similar to get to 34, in order to convince legislators that the convention won’t be become a “runaway convention,” in which delegates propose an amendment or amendments that go beyond the original scope of the convention, such as repealing past amendments (Second Amendment for example) or go even further by drafting an entirely new constitution. The truth is that nothing in Article V states that the applications have to be the same or similar, that the applications have to be limited to a single amendment or subject, or that the convention must be limited to the subject of the application. These are modern fabrications designed to mislead legislators. And legislators who don’t research both sides repeat these falsehoods while debating in legislative chambers all over the country.
In a 2020 article (https://web.archive.org/web/20200226231515/https:/huntforliberty.com/a-convention-strategy/) entitled “A Convention Strategy,” published on the pro-A5C website HuntForLiberty.com, convention proponents Paul Gardiner, Ron Scott, and Neal Schuerer admit the following: “Additionally, some constitutional scholars believe that even in a so-called limited COS, nothing (except the COS rules established by the delegates themselves) will prevent amendments being proposed and voted upon that are outside the limitations stated in COS applications.” (Emphasis added.) The article continues, “Finally, another important consideration in determining a strategic direction for the AV COS [A5C] movement are the opinions of several constitution scholars (Paulsen, Black, Dellinger, Caplan, et al.) that Congress lacks authority to call and sanction a limited COS.” (Emphasis added.) Clearly these convention proponents believe that an Article V convention does not have to be limited to the purpose for which it is called, unless the delegates themselves decide to follow the original purpose of the convention — but they don’t have to.
In a nutshell, the author writes to warn that some advocates are using the A5C to effect a runaway convention to ultimately scrap the Constitution and bring about a new constitution. However, I must point out that Christian Gomez is mistaken when he conflates “constitutional convention” with “convention of the states”, those terms are entirely different — a constitutional convention can rewrite the entire Constitution, while a convention of States are focused on specific amendments. The article is rather long, but I cannot stress enough that it is vital we read it and understand the issues. We have witnessed the steal of an election and understand that it didn’t just spontaneously happen in 2020, but was a long term strategy of incremental steals going as far back as 2000 and longer even. But that is but one prong of a multiple pronged attack on the Constitutional Republic that our Founding Fathers gave us and we must be diligent if we are to reclaim it and keep it. Here’s another excerpt from the same article.
Aggregation Scheme Origins
The promotion of the new aggregation scheme can be traced to Gardiner’s article. He reveals that A5C advocates are concerned about recent rescission efforts, and as a result must push for an A5C as soon as possible before any more outstanding applications are rescinded. “In concert with the axiom that ‘timing is everything’, and in view of the increasing risk of COS application rescission efforts in different states, it would be a very wise action to have a COS successfully convened and conducted no later than end of year 2022,” Gardiner pleads…
Gardiner concludes his article with the following recommendation from the ACF:
- The comprehensive strategy of ACF (or similar strategy) needs to be seriously considered and funded in planning to make application to the Congress to call a general COS. Below, for example, are some of the more important actions listed by ACF:
- Organize the states that have already submitted applications for an Article V General Convention to affirm that their applications remain valid and in force, and that they expect Congress to discharge their duty to call the Convention;
- Work with additional states (if necessary) to remove limiting language from an existing application, or pass a new application for an Article V General Convention to attain the 34 applications needed to trigger the Convention;
- Equip State Attorneys General for litigation to compel Congress to call the Convention, should it be necessary;
- Hold a pre-convention assembly to prepare state legislatures to effectively participate in the Convention; and
- Provide the states with logistical support from pre-convention all the way through ratification, including facilities, security, communications, media, and legal support.
This is key, as it reveals their strategy to reach 34 states. They want to aggregate the different A5C applications by removing any “limiting language” from existing applications that may hinder aggregation, and they want to pursue litigation to force the call for a convention. The last bullet point — providing “states with logistical support from pre-convention all the way through ratification, including facilities, security, communications, media, and legal support” — will require an exorbitant amount of money to carry out. This raises the question of where such a vast revenue stream is coming from. And if an A5C cannot go astray, as they have been assuring legislators for years, why would the state legislatures need all of this logistical “support” all the way through the ratification process? Furthermore, what kind of pressure, or “support,” will the A5C lobby exert on the convention delegates?
STOP! Before end of 2022?
The swamp stole the 2020 election (as well as many other elections going back decades) and Gardiner is urging we activate A5C before end of 2022? And just who is in control of Congress now? RINOs and Demonrats! Our answer must be NO! Only after We-The-People have taken back our government and not a moment before. Again, I urge you to read the full article.
I would stop here and move on with the point of my paper, but I simply must include another section of this article as it is very relevant today, concerning the voter fraud.
On January 27, 2021, Georgia State Senator Bill Cowsert (R-Athens) introduced, before the Georgia General Assembly, Senate Resolution 29, a resolution applying to Congress for an Article V convention for the ostensible purpose of proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment. However, SR 29’s unique wording is the first of its kind among A5C applications. Below is the convoluted wording, which reads unlike any other BBA application, especially at lines 21-32:
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this application shall be deemed an application for a
- convention to address only the subject herein stated. For the purposes of determining
- whether two-thirds of the states have applied for a convention addressing any of the subjects
- stated herein, this application is to be aggregated with the applications of any other state
- legislatures for the single subjects of balancing the federal budget, including but not limited
- to previously adopted applications from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
- Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
- Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
- Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington,
- Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Wisconsin; and this application shall be aggregated with
- the same for the purpose of attaining the two-thirds of states necessary to require the calling
- of a convention, but shall not be aggregated with any applications on any other subject.
The six states, emphasized above in italics, have not passed BBA convention applications! Listed below are the six states along with their Article V convention applications that Senator Cowsert wants to combine with the 27 active applications for a BBA convention:
- New York (1789) for a Bill of Rights;
- New Jersey (1861) to prevent the Civil War;
- Kentucky (1861) to prevent the Civil War;
- Illinois (1861) to prevent the Civil War;
- Oregon (1901) for the direct election of U.S. senators; and
- Washington (1901) for no stated purpose other than Congress simply “call a convention for proposing, amendments to the constitution of the United States of America as authorized by article v.”
Legislators aren’t being told the truth. The hypocrisy is clear in Georgia, because Senator Cowsert, the lead sponsor for SR 29, told his colleagues on the Georgia Senate floor on March 12, 2020 that the 33 states (listed in SR 29 and amended into its 2020 predecessor, SR 854) had all passed applications for a BBA convention. And he said that they were added specifically to prevent a runaway convention!
Georgia strikes again? I mentioned earlier that this attack is part of a multi-pronged strategy. We know about Governor Kemp and SOS Raffensberger concerning their deliberate role in the Election Steal and it looks like Sen Cowsert is part of the Georgia uniparty. Either that, or to be charitable, he is naïve. I posit that in politics, it is safer to assume malicious ill-intent than attribute naiveté. Harsh? Not at all, after all, they swore an oath to faithfully uphold the Constitution, or in the case of GA Sen Cowsert, his State’s Constitution. Ergo, the default position should always be mean what you say and say what you mean, with the Constitution as your foundation and with the consent of the governed.
Again, we should patiently wait until power has been returned to We-The-People before moving forward to fix the damages to our Constitution. One more excerpt from this important article.
Looking Back To See Forward
The Continental Congress and the states originally tasked the delegates to the 1787 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention with “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” At the time, the Articles of Confederation were the supreme law of the land. Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation specifically stipulated that “any alterations” made to the Articles of Confederation had to be unanimously “agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”
Both of these mandates were clearly exceeded. The delegates instead chose to replace the Articles of Confederation with an entirely new federal constitution. And they also altered the mode of ratification from being “confirmed by the legislatures of every State,” according to Article XIII of still-governing Articles of Confederation, to ratification by only nine of the 13 states. Article VII, Section I of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”
Who is to say that the same historical precedent won’t be used again to draft an entirely new — perhaps even socialist — constitution that would be considered ratified by way of a national referendum, in a modern populist appeal to “democracy”? This would enable those pushing for the new constitution to claim popular support, when they may simply have control of the voting machines, and therefore, control of the outcome. This is why any Article V convention, including one ostensibly “limited” to proposing a single subject or amendment such as the BBA, should be avoided at all costs.
Despite the claims by A5C advocates such as Cowsert, Gardiner, Natelson, Biddulph, and Meckler, and Lessig that a convention is necessary because it is the “only” solution to rein in Washington, the truth is that Article V was never meant to restrain the federal government’s usurpation of power. The framers of the Constitution drafted Article V to remedy any potential defects in the Constitution.
According to James Madison’s notes on the Federal Convention of 1787, Alexander Hamilton explained on September 10, 1787 that the purpose of amendments was “for supplying [archaic use, meaning to remedy] defects which probably appear in the new System.” And in The Federalist No. 85, Hamilton further explained the corrective purpose of amendments, writing in part: “In opposition to the probability of subsequent amendments, it has been urged that the persons delegated to the administration of the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority of which they were once possessed. For my own part I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers.“
Today’s problems in Washington do not stem from defects in the Constitution, but rather from Washington’s departure from the Constitution’s original meaning and interpretation. Just as an informed electorate would be necessary for upholding any new amendments, so too is an informed electorate necessary for the preservation of the current U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the solution is not new amendments, but education about and fidelity to the current Constitution.
In Chapter 17 of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, published in 1831, de Tocqueville observed how well the average American citizen understood the Constitution: “In New England, every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is moreover taught the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution. In the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts, it is extremely rare to find a man imperfectly acquainted with all these things, and a person wholly ignorant of them is a sort of phenomenon.”
I cannot stress enough that words matter and we must be diligent about any attempt to Steal the Constitution. And that the goal of any A5C should focus on returning to and preserving the original meaning and intent of the Constitution. Namely, restricting the powers of the federal government and reserving the unenumerated powers to the States and or We-The-People.
Moving on, let’s look at what the advocates for A5C are proposing.
Proponents of Article V Convention of States
There are a number of organizations that are doing good and critical work to make us aware of the power We-The-People have over the DC Swamp. At the local level, in this case, at the County level, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers of America. https://CSPOA.org, is teaching Sheriffs about their authority and power as “Lesser Magistrates” to successfully fight against Federal agencies that unconstitutionally harass their constituents. Just because an agency has the “law”, more likely just bureaucrat created regulations, does not mean it is constitutional. And the Sheriff has the power to stand between them and their intended target for abuse, by nullifying unconstitutional actions within their jurisdiction. Although they have nothing to do with Term Limits, I mention them as they are a valuable resource whether or not Term Limits succeeds and well worth checking out. But I digress…
Let’s look at the three leading proposals being offered up for consideration by proponents of Article V Convention of States (A5C), which are U.S. Term Limits Organization , Convention of States Action and by Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s The Texas Plan.
First up is the U.S. Term Limits organization (USTL). As you might deduce from the name, USTL is a single Issue organization based out of Washington, D.C. and advocates for term limits at all levels of government. Their tagline is “Citizen legislators, not career politicians”. Established in early 90s, they had assisted in enacting and defending term limits on state legislatures in 15 states as well as congressional term limits in 23 states. However, the Supreme Court voided those efforts, ruling that legislation to limit terms were unconstitutional. So in 2016, USTL retooled and launched the Term Limits Convention, a new project to enact a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits.
About U.S. Term Limits Organization (USTL)
How Can We Get The U.S. Term Limits Constitutional Amendment?
It can happen in one of two ways. First, Congress can propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. Currently, Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas are sponsoring the USTL amendment on Capitol Hill. It calls for a three-term (six year) limit on representatives and a two-term (12 year) limit on senators. USTL asks all candidates for congress to sign a pledge in support of this amendment.
If Congress refuses to pass term limits on itself, citizens and activists can use the Term Limits Convention. The Term Limits Convention allows 34 state legislatures to convene a meeting to write an amendment for congressional term limits. The process bypasses Washington and allows the people and the states to impose congressional term limits.
NOTE: Conservative Review gives both Rep Norman and Sen Ted Cruz a “Liberty Score” of a B — 86% and 80% respectively. I suppose both will lead by example and voluntarily leave after 6/12 years, right? It’s one thing to pledge support, another to walk the talk.?? Source: https://libertyscore.conservativereview.com.
Note that while USTL states that there are 2 ways to bring about a constitutional amendment, others disagree. Rob Natelson, originally writing for Epoch Times argues that there are actually 4 (more to follow later).
The next group promoting A5C…
About Convention of States Action
Convention Of States Action, https://cosaction.com. COSAction, like the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers of America. https://CSPOA.org, are doing good and critical work to make us aware of the power We-The-People have over the DC Swamp and in this case, to amend the Constitution whenever Congress itself is unwilling to do so.
I feel I need to insert a disclaimer of sorts here. COSAction is run by Mark Meckler, who was recently named interim CEO of resurrected Parler. But the matter of Parler has nothing to do with Term Limits or for that matter A5C.
I highly recommend you check them out and if interested join them. But keep in mind, the warnings about using A5C as a Trojan Horse. By signing up, you will get regular newsletters and download a free pocket guide to Article V. This Convention of the States power is derived from Article V, which states:
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; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
For as long as I can remember, we have been gaslit by intentional lies perpetuated by uninformed, but well meaning conservatives that we should avoid an Article V COS because we could have a runaway convention. That’s indeed a scary thought, but it simply isn’t true as long as we resolutely adhere to the stipulation that “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”.
Simply put, it takes 34 states to call the convention and 38 to ratify each and every or any amendments that are proposed. Surely 13 or more Red States would block any radical progressive attempt to change the constitution? Fortunately at this time, there aren’t enough Blue States to block ratification, although there are enough iffy Purple States that would align with the Blue States to defeat ratification, depending on the proposed Amendment.
That said, when the ongoing forensic audits prove that many a 2020 Republican candidate was defrauded and consequently are installed in their rightful position as Representatives and Senators, the balance will tilt even more in our favor. However, even when blocked, such a proposal could remain “shelved” for years in hopes of another chance in the future, as there is no Constitutional sunset. That is something we need to keep in mind, as ratification is cumulative, for however long it takes. So as States flip, We-The-People must demand our elected to void the ratification of any previous proposal to which we do not consent.
Case in point, the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment).
Quick Detour for ERA Update…
Look at how long that proposal languished before supposedly being dispensed with. That’s because the so-called 2nd wave feminists ‘didn’t want the ERA, they wanted the SRA… Superior Rights Amendment!’ Speaking of the SRA, who remembers Wally Rap from 1986?
And Rush (rest in peace) played a role in derailing that amendment back in the 80s and 90s. And what do you know? Nancy Pelosi and her gang are trying to resurrect the ERA as part of their “Equity” initiative. See Nancy Pelosi’s Press Conference on Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) Transcript March 17, 2021, https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/nancy-pelosi-press-conference-on-equal-rights-amendment-era-transcript-march-17.
On one hand, these Demonrats express concern for women and yet on the other hand, their HR5 Equality Rights bill elevates transgender rights in which ironically would send women to the back of the line as biological males, who delusionally identify as female, compete against women, negating their Title IX protections. This is peak derangement by design.
For your information, here is the list of 38 States – YES!!! The necessary three-fourths of the States have ratified the ERA proposal:
|Alaska, April 5, 1972 (Date ratified)||Maryland, May 26, 1972||Oregon, Feb. 8, 1973|
|California, Nov. 13, 1972||Massachusetts, June 21, 1972||Pennsylvania, Sept. 26, 1972|
|Colorado, April 21, 1972||Michigan, May 22, 1972||Rhode Island, April 14, 1972|
|Connecticut, March 15, 1973||Minnesota, Feb. 8, 1973||South Dakota*, Feb. 5, 1973|
|Delaware, March 23, 1972||Montana, Jan. 25, 1974||Tennessee*, April 4, 1972|
|Hawaii, March 22, 1972||Nebraska*, March 29, 1972||Texas, March 30, 1972|
|Idaho*, March 24, 1972||Nevada, March 21, 2017||Vermont, March 1, 1973|
|Illinois, May 30, 2018||New Hampshire, March 23, 1972||Virginia, January 27, 2020–38th State to ratify!!!|
|Indiana, Jan. 24, 1977||New Jersey, April 17, 1972||Washington, March 22, 1973|
|Iowa, March 24, 1972||New Mexico, Feb. 28, 1973||West Virginia; April 22, 1972|
|Kansas, March 28, 1972||New York, May 18, 1972||Wisconsin, April 26, 1972|
|Kentucky*, June 27, 1972||North Dakota, Feb. 3, 1975||Wyoming, Jan. 26, 1973|
|Maine, Jan. 18, 1974||Ohio, Feb. 7, 1974|
* Five States have voted to rescind or otherwise withdraw their ratification of the ERA: Nebraska, March 15, 1973; Tennessee, April 23, 1974; Idaho, February 8, 1977; Kentucky, March 20, 1978; South Dakota: March 5, 1979.
If your State is in the list of 38 above but has not rescinded their ratification of the ERA, that is one more item to add to your list of issues for your slate of 2022 State candidates. Let’s hold their feet to the fire on this!
Why, you may ask? Read on…
38 – 5 = 33 States, so we’re safe, right? Not so fast. Recall how I stated at the top that in today’s environment under the USA Corporation, words don’t matter? Well, here’s what proponents of the ERA at the Alice Paul Institute are arguing:
Can a state legally rescind their ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment?
Article V of the Constitution speaks only to the states’ power to ratify an amendment but not to the power to rescind a ratification. All precedents concerning state rescissions of ratifications indicate that such actions are not valid and that the constitutional amendment process as described in Article V allows only for ratification. For example, the official tally of ratifying states for the 14th Amendment in 1868 by both the Secretary of State and Congress included New Jersey and Ohio, states which had passed resolutions to rescind their ratifications. Also included in the tally were North Carolina and South Carolina, states which had originally rejected and later ratified the amendment. In the course of promulgating the 14th Amendment, therefore, Congress determined that both attempted withdrawals of ratifications and previous rejections prior to ratification had no legal validity.
Therefore, it is most likely that the actions of the five states — Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Tennessee — that voted to rescind their ratification of the ERA between 1972 and 1982 are a legal nullity.
These progressives are like the Terminator; they just keep coming, and coming, after us and will not stop until they have fundamentally transformed our nation into a Marxist “utopia”. The only thing stopping the Uniparty from going ahead and declaring the ERA a done deal is that they are not sure if their “legally nullity” argument will stand. Furthermore, they are not going to press the issue now when their advantage in balance in power is in jeopardy with upcoming 2022 elections. No need to further inflame and motivate the Patriots who stand against them. You might say they are running silent and deep for now, in hopes of a better battlefield.
Seriously, when was that last time you even thought of the ERA? For some readers, they might not ever have heard of it. But just because it is out of mind for us, it is never out of sight for the progressives. All part of a relentless multi-pronged attack on our Constitution and Country. Let us not be swayed by emotional arguments but a clear-headed resolve to keep America great by preserving our Constitution.
Back to COSAction…
Recall that on September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified, over 27 months later, by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 3–12) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights. In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 1 was never ratified.. Even then, there was heated debates about some of those proposals. One argument being that it was unnecessary to be so explicit as some rights were already implied in the Constitution itself. The 2nd Amendment was one such proposal that hung in the balance. Can you imagine where we’d be now without it? But I digress.
COSAction Platform Proposes The Following Amendments
- The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress.
- Term limits on Congress (I take issue with this)
- Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning
- Limiting the power of federal regulations by giving an easy congressional override (giving States standing in any case of Federal overreach)
- Require a super majority for federal taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment
- Give the states (by a 3/5ths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation or executive order.
COSAction Platform Formation And Endorsements
COSAction is steered nationally by President Mark Meckler, with Eric O’Keefe as Chairman of the Board. Both Sen Tom Coburn and Sen Jim DeMint served as Senior Advisors. Sen Coburn passed away last year.
The platform of the proposed Amendments currently making the rounds currently in 34 States for support was first fleshed out in 2015, culminating in a “mock convention” of the COS Action members in July 2016. Pretty much all the key issues we are struggling with today in all 3 branches of our “runaway” government, eh? I would have like to have participated in that.
Anyway, COSAction is steadily making progress and we are close to bringing about an Article V COS. As I said at the top, we need to discuss Term Limits before this gets rushed through. All the more when conservative “stars” are endorsing it, such as:
|· Ben Shapiro||· Pete Hegseth||· LTC Allen West||· Sen Rand Paul|
|· Mark Levin||· Morton Blackwell||· LTC Bill Cowan||· Sen Jim Talent|
|· James O’Keefe||· Lawrence Reed||· Hon. Ben Carson||· Sen Jim DeMint|
|· Steve Deace||· David Horowitz||· Hon Ken Cuccinelli||· Gov Ron DeSantis|
|· Sean Hannity||· David Barton||· Rep William Timmons||· Gov Mike Huckabee|
|· Eric Metaxas||· Lawrence Jones||· Rep Jeff Duncan||· Gov Sarah Palin|
|Steve Hilton||· Michael Farris||· Rep Ralph Norman||· Gov Bobby Jindal|
|· Pete Coors||· Dr James Dobson||· Rep Louie Gohmert||· Gov Greg Abbott|
|· Charlie Kirk||· Prof Rob Natelson||· Sen Marco Rubio—
now running for a 3rd term
|Gov Jeb Bush supports this???
Please clap for ¡Yeb! ????
COSAction Progress – 34 States Needed To Call A Convention
The Texas Plan
One of the founding stars behind the Article V COS Action is Texas Governor Greg Abbott. I should emphasize “former shining star”, as his policy responses to ‘muh Corona’ has been anything but constitutional. Add in his recent attack on free speech vis-à-vis Gab, as “anti-Semitic”. Really makes you wonder what the CCP has on him.
As far as I’m concerned, his political career is cancelled, but I do appreciate his “The Texas Plan” as he lays out remedies for our Constitution. As Gov Abbott states in the introduction; “The Constitution itself is not broken. What is broken is our Nation’s willingness to obey the Constitution and to hold our leaders accountable to it. The solution is to restore the rule of law by ensuring that our government abides by the Constitution’s limits.”
Gov Abbott’s The Texas Plan is entitled “Restoring The Rule Of Law With States Leading The Way” (backup PDF here) — I guess he misplaced it when he “led” the way in tackling the Plandemic. Here he lists the 9 proposals for a A5C that is fully detailed in the Texas Plan. We can take it from here without further input from Gov Abbott.
The Texas Plan Proposes the Following 9 Amendments:
- Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
- Require Congress to balance its budget.
- Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
- Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
- Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
- Require a seven-justice super-majority vote (or 3/4th, if expanded) for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
- Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
- Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
- Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation
Pretty good, eh? I think so. Notice how he does not include Term Limits? By working now with the COSAction and the States, we need to merge these two sets of proposals and drop the Term Limit proposal as moot—moot if the 17th Amendment and The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 are repealed.
Opponents of Article V Convention of States
Enter Andrew Torba, founder of Gab, who has hurled baseless accusations against Mark Meckler and COSAction, claiming George Soros is behind the effort in order to initiate a runaway convention. I admire Torba for starting Gab, but when it comes to politics, he’s a bit wet behind the ears. The only reason I can surmise, is that he has a case of sour grapes, both, against Mark and President Trump. Mark is also CEO of Parler, a social media platform in direct competition with Gab. And whining almost daily, via his Gab posts, that President Trump won’t join Gab. Really? Besmirching Ivanka and Jared is hardly the way to get #45 to join the platform??
Speaking of social media, at least we don’t have to depend on the Tech Oligarchy to share the topic of Term Limits, among others, with conservatives on the Internet. Telegram seems to be very popular for chat groups. Mike Lindell recently launched frankspeech.com, a new social media app to eventually compete with both Twitter and YouTube as new functionality is added. Currently, it is rumored that President Trump will soon launch his own social media platform as well. What interesting times we live in.
Laying the issue of social media aside; What we have here are 3 competing motives and narratives concerning Article V COS.
- Those that want to exercise our constitutional right to amend as needed for better governance and ensuring that we put America first once again.
- Cynics that fear or distrust We-The-People exercising their rights and thereby diminishing the federal collective. They will use FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) to prevent that exercise. In the extreme, they seek to deceive us with the notion that a Convention of States is synonymous with a Constitutional Convention by which our Constitution is scrapped. To this end, they may point to the Articles of Confederation (1777), which will be discussed next.
- Marxists that scheme to indeed hijack the process as a Trojan Horse to steal the Constitution. They depend on people to be unfamiliar with the subject and go along with a weak process for invoking the convention.
Muh Articles of Confederation!
A major point of contention against engaging a A5C, is that when delegates convened to propose amendments for the Articles of Confederation (AoC — Not that ditzy AOC), they ended up scrapping the AoC and drafted a more evolved document, the Constitution. The “anti-A5C” typically point to the fact that the AoC requires 100% ratification, while the Constitution only requires three-fourths; if the Founders could ignore the 100% requirement and scrap the AoC, what’s to stop them from scrapping the Constitution during an A5C? Good question, so let’s dive in.
Shallow Dive on the Articles of Confederation
Whereas the Constitution is designed for a federal republic form of government, the AoC is a confederation. A confederation is primarily any league or union of people or bodies of people. The term in modern political use is generally confined to a permanent union of sovereign states for certain common purposes—e.g., the German Confederation established by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Confederations are voluntary associations of independent states that, to secure some common purpose, agree to certain limitations… The distinction between confederation and federation—words synonymous in their origin—has been developed in the political terminology of the United States. Until 1789 the U.S. was a confederation; then the word federation, or federal republic, was introduced as implying closer union. Other examples include; Confederate States of America (CSA) during the Civil War and League of Nations which was also scrapped after a few years in favor of the United Nations (UN).
The Articles of Confederation was the first founding document, after the Declaration of Independence, of the United States. It was written in 1777, shortly after England went to war against the rebel colonies. It would be another 4 years before it was fully ratified on March 1, 1781. Under these articles, the states remained sovereign and independent, with Congress serving as the last resort on appeal of disputes. In the AoC, Congress was given the authority to make treaties and alliances, maintain armed forces and coin money. However, Congress lacked the ability to levy taxes and regulate commerce (read more here).
If you watched Netflix’s 4 seasons of TURN, you will recall the difficulties that George Washington had in keeping his army fed, clothed, paid and, most importantly, maintaining morale. Oftentimes, he and his admirals and generals would dip into their own purse to keep the army and navy engaged. As I tell my kids, the reason we have the Bill of Rights can be directly linked to the abuses experienced by the Colonials at the hands of the British, which TURN captures so well… Everything from the 1st Amendment through the 10th Amendment.
The following two articles from this first Constitution was in force from March 1, 1781, until 1789, sets the tone of this confederacy. Bear in mind that the Articles of Confederation was basically forged during a state of war against England and events would soon prove it to be unsuitable for an United States in a time of peace. The full text is available here.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.
This document was so weak with regards to federal powers that it was relatively toothless and caused a lot of frustrations between the several States. As wonderfully expounded by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, rather than discuss them here, I’ll just link to the relevant papers below.
#37 – Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government
#38 – The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed
#39 – The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
#40 – The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
#41 – General View of the Powers Conferred by the Constitution
#42 – The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered
#43 – The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered. Especially bullet-point 8 and bullet-point 9.
#44 – Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States
#45 – The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
#46 – The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared
#47 – The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts
#48 – These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other
#49 – Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention
#50 – Periodic Appeals to the People Considered
A lengthy reading list to be sure, but essential to the discussion of why the Articles of Confederation was inferior and needed to be replaced. It also contains warnings of how the government might evolve to assume more powers than intended. In other words, we were warned, yet it happened because we were gulled by smooth-talking politicians or otherwise preoccupied with living our lives. By no means do I intend to cast blame on my fellow Americans for not paying attention, after all, it is these very politicians that burdened us with so much bovine scat to give them much thought. But now that we’re awake, we need to make the changes count.
Needless to say, there was no “runaway convention” by which the AoC was hastily scrapped, rather it was deliberative in a long and drawn out process. And the Federalist Papers served to inform the then We-The-People by comparing and contrasting the AoC against the proposed new Constitution. The writers even explained why the 100% ratification was scrapped in favor of three-fourths majority by the States.
So yes, Virginia, there really is a danger in calling for a A5C; BUT only so long as the majority of States remain infiltrated by Republican DIABLOs — Demonrats In All But Label; such as Governors Kemp, Duecy, DeWine, along with unpatriotic members of the various legislatures (i.e. Georgia State Senator Bill Cowsert (R-Athens)) and office holders (i.e. GA SOS Brad Raffensperger, etc). A5C ought to be out of the question before the 2022 elections.
Bottom-line, freedom-loving Patriots ought not let fear paralyze us from ever amending the Constitution via A5C. I mean, it’s not like the U.S. Legislature is any more qualified than We-The-People to propose amendments, as you will discover further on below. In essence, ever since 1865, the U.S Congress began violating the Constitution with the ratification of the 13th Amendment. While their intentions may have been noble at first, it did not take long before the truly corrupt “uniparty” politicians began using “noble intentions” to alter our very Constitution beginning with the 14th Amendment. The Organic Act of 1871, more or less sealed our fate by creating the USA Corporation, then came more abuses of the Constitution, such as using the power of the purse to implement the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and so on… Back to the topic at hand.
To Convention Or Not To Convention?
Fortunately, the amount of historical and legal clarification we have for Article V is enormous, so when you hear charges that Article V is “vague” or “sketchy,” chalk it up as a confession of ignorance.
Article V tells us that before the states may ratify an amendment, it first must be formally proposed. It provides four paths to amendment. (Common claims that there are only two methods are also erroneous.) The paths are:
(1) Proposal by two-thirds of each house of Congress, followed by ratification by popular conventions in each state. This method was used to adopt the 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition.
(2) Proposal by two-thirds of each house of Congress, then ratification by state legislatures. This method was used for the other amendments.
(3) Proposal by a “Convention for proposing Amendments,” then ratification by popular conventions in each state.
(4) Proposal by a “Convention for proposing Amendments,” then ratification by state legislatures.
A “Convention for proposing Amendments” is merely one kind of convention of the states. There is no serious doubt about this: The historical evidence is massive (pdf) and includes a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (pdf).
The Founders chose the convention-of-states device because it had been widely, and successfully, used (pdf). The first gathering of that sort (actually a convention of colonies) had been held in Albany, New York, over a century earlier. There had been about 20 more during the colonial era, and another 10 between 1776 and 1787.
Since 1787, they have continued at a slower pace, but they have continued. The latest was held in Phoenix in 2017.
Most interstate conventions have been limited to colonies or states within a particular region. But at least seven have been “general” (national), including the 2017 Phoenix confab.
These gatherings have addressed many kinds of problems. Some early ones coordinated local defense. The 1787 convention proposed the U.S. Constitution. An 1889 convention proposed anti-trust laws. Some 20th century conclaves negotiated western water compacts. A few, most notably the 1861 Washington, D.C. convention, proposed constitutional amendments.
Thus, another common claim—that the 1787 gathering is the only convention precedent—is also wide of the mark.
An early draft of the Constitution would have allowed a convention of states to both propose and ratify amendments. (Opponents’ contention that an amendments convention was merely the framers’ afterthought is likewise erroneous.) In the final draft, either Congress or a convention could propose and only the states could ratify.
When the Constitution became public, many people were concerned that it gave the federal government too much authority. The document’s supporters, however, pointed out that the convention mechanism gave the states complete power to amend—even against federal opposition. Without the convention device, the public probably would have rejected the Constitution. Indeed, without the threat of an amendments convention, Congress probably never would have proposed the Bill of Rights or the two-term limit on the president.
The convention of states procedure begins with an invitation known as a “call.” For most conventions, a single state can issue it. For example, the state of Virginia called the 1787 Constitutional Convention, set the place and time, and defined the convention’s purpose. (The common story that the Confederation Congress called the convention, which then exceeded its power, is another fable (pdf)).
Source: Rob Natelson, in article first published by the Epoch Times on February 25, 2021
This article is worth a read in it’s entirety. The main thing to remember is that there is the A5C in which two-thirds of either both Houses of US Congress, or two-thirds of State Legislatures or popular conventions, may propose amendments to the Constitution. This is where the exact language of the proposed Amendment is hashed out. Once presented to the States for ratification, there is no option to “edit” the language of the proposal. The three-fourths of the State Legislature or popular conventions either accept it and ratify it, or they reject ratifying it. Basically an “up, or down” vote. If due to objections to certain provisions within the proposed amendment, then it would need to go back to convention. But that would seem rather unlikely as that is the point of the convention, to hash out the language.
On the other hand, a Constitutional Convention, is the effort to rewrite and or replace the existing constitution. And this is where either out of ignorance or ulterior motives, the two are conflated as a warning against exercising our Constitutional prerogatives to amend the Constitution.
Deep Dive On Devolution
Why Devolve Back To The 1789 – 1871 Constitution?
With the preceding information in hand, let’s talk specifically about Term Limits and why many think we need it. I point out here that I used to be in that group, especially while I lived in Texas back in the 80s and 90s. I’m not exactly sure when I came around to discarding it, but with the advent of the internet, it became very easy to find, and download source documents, and to participate in many a discussion online at various conservative blogs, so that would put it somewhere around the late 90s to mid-00s. I was most influenced by a 1998 or 1999 post by the late great Steven Den Beste in one of his USS Clueless blog which is no longer online.
The question I would ask anyone that believes we need term limits is this; Assuming the Founding Fathers were guided by real life experiences, in dealing with a tyrant, and by Divine Providence; Did something change to the Constitution that now requires term limits? If so, then shouldn’t we need to correct that before resorting to a band-aid on this gaping wound to the Constitution?
Bear in mind that per the 10th Amendment; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. We-The-People have always had direct representation, although it has since been very diluted by a magnitude of order, via the House of Representatives. The States, however, also lost their direct representation with passage of the 17th Amendment.
The 16th, A Planned Precursor To The 17th
Just as the statist progressives sold us a lie, predicated on jealousy and animosity towards the rich, in order to ratify the 16th Amendment, giving Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. We-The-People were told by our “leaders” that ‘only the richest 1% would be taxed for their fair share‘. The rest of us wouldn’t have to worry about taxes. That quickly expanded to 3% to include all millionaires.
Sounds familiar? But wait, there’s more… By amending Article I, section 9, (more specifically “…No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken…”) the Central Bankers did an end run around the following sacrosanct rights affirmed by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th, Amendments–if you’re not sure what I mean by that, you might want to re-read them–thereby establishing a personal one-to-one relationship with each and every
citizen inhabitant in America. Not by warrant, but by the barrel of a gun; we have no choice but to submit our papers to the government for the assessment of taxes and detection of possible crimes, etc, year in, year out. In less than a 100 years, an income of $50,000 is enough to trigger direct taxation of you and me. So much for “sticking it to the rich”. To add insult to injury, the government will withhold our taxes interest free until we reconcile what is due.
Establishes the direct taxation of citizens.
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The 17th To Seal The Heist
Knowing that the legitimacy and validity of 16th Amendment was precarious (previous efforts at an income tax were ruled unconstitutional), as the States would eventually wise up to the abuse and act to repeal it, the 17th was needed to cement the heist. Once again, the deep state wooed us with the lie that We-The-People could not be whole so long as we were deprived of our “direct representation” by the Senate. If only we could also directly elect our Senators, then DC would be more responsive to us.
Like Eve led to eat the fruit from tree of the knowledge of good and evil; we willingly ‘expanded the representation of the people‘ and amended Article I, section 3—to our eventual harm. This weakened the ability of the States to protect We-The-People from ever more intrusions by the Federal Government. The unintended consequence is that Senators became equal, if not greater, than their respective State. And thus, we too often see Senators vote to override State laws, contrary to the intent of our Founding Fathers…
So much for direct representation by the Senate. Instead of being responsive to the people that sent them to DC, they are responsive to the lobbyists and cronies that funded their campaigns.
The full text of both are provided below for your review.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, [
chosen by the Legislature thereof(Eliminated by 17th Amendment, Paragraph 1)], for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; [
and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies. (Eliminated by 17th Amendment, Paragraph 2)].
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Establishes the direct election of Senators by popular vote.
Passed May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Tying The 16th And 17th Amendment With Federal Reserve Bank
The Federal Reserve Act was passed and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on December 23, 1913, establishing the Federal Reserve System as the central bank of the United States to provide the nation with a “safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system”.
Just as 9/11 has been rumored to be a Deep State sacrifice of nearly 3,000 souls and to hide the heist of billions in gold and bond certificates stored in basement of WTC (due to mature the following day), similar rumors swirls around the sinking of the Titanic on 15 April 1912. Over 1,500 souls perished, including 3 influential Americans, John Jacob Astor IV, a German-American millionaire who had made his fortune in real estate, Benjamin Guggenheim, heir to the family’s mining business, and Isidor Straus who was the German-born co-owner of Macy’s department store in New York.
It is said that they were resolutely against the establishing of the Federal Reserve Bank and had they survived, they would have successfully blocked passage of the Federal Reserve Act. On the other hand, JP Morgan and John Rockefeller, among other rich and powerful men, were in favor of the Central Bank. They got their wish. Interestingly, JP Morgan was also to have boarded the Titanic with the others, but canceled at the very last moment. Setup?
Seven months after passage of the Federal Reserve Act, on June 28 1914, Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were in Sarajevo to inspect the imperial armed forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina. When 19-year-old Gavrilo Princip and his fellow members of the nationalist Young Bosnia successfully assassinated them. Hmmm, “Young Bosnia”… Anything like the “youth” infested Antifa, BLM or Occupy Wall Street?
Thus started WW1 which killed millions, never mind the Spanish Flu in the closing days of the war. And as we now know, Bankers make money playing both sides in wars. And eventually, the Federal Reserve Bank was funding and profiting from U.S. participation in the Great War.
Coincidence? Or all connected via a long term plan? Whether you believe it or not; consider that this year’s Tax Day fell on the 109th anniversary of the Titanic sinking on 15 April 1912.
We Don’t Need No Steenkin’ Term Limits For Senators…
We need to repeal the 17th Amendment! The Senators are supposed to answer directly to their respective States, not We-The-People. In reality, they answer to the lobbyists who pile on stacks of cash while paying us lip service and ignoring the real needs of their state governments. As State Governments come and go, or even change parties, so will Senators.
Imagine… No more Senate candidates on ballots. No more dark money pouring into Senator’s campaign coffers. Lobbyists will now have to spread the money among all the electors. Not so easy nor cheap as State legislatures are more sensitive to the will of their citizens.
Look at the increasing acts of defiance by State legislatures against the dictates of the Federal Government. If power resides with us, that’s where our focus should be… On State governments to assert their 10th Amendment rights. Lobbyists didn’t help the States reassert their rights so much as the voters demanded it.
To whit; the domino effect as one State after another begins a forensic audit of the 2020 election, against the will of the swamp. Because We-The-People are demanding it and ready to back it up with a political evisceration of those standing in our way. Likewise, the States leading the way in nullifying Federal laws and edicts concerning abortion, 2nd A, illegal immigration etc.
Cue The Plan To Unconstitutionally Limit The House
Let me put it this way. With the 16th and 17th, among other key pieces of legislation in hand, the Deep State now had control of the economy, the issuance of currency and debt via the Central Bank; sway over the Senate and by extension over the judicial branch via ‘advise and consent‘; and gatekeeper to the executive branch as well as the executive agencies that would carry out the Deep State’s will. But they also needed to control the ‘power of the purse‘ which resides in the House of Representatives.
Controlling 400 odd Representatives was easy enough. However, at the rate the US was expanding (adding states) and growing population-wise, it doesn’t take an evil genius to see that controlling a thousand or so Representatives in a generation or two would be like herding cats. Something had to be done to keep the number of Representative at a manageable and corruptible level.
Before we look at this unconstitutional Plan, let us first examine the Constitution regarding the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons(Eliminated by 14th Amendment, Sections 1 & 2)]. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. [The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand (Technically never repealed and still in the Constitution, but eliminated by the Apportionment Act of 1929)], but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Before I continue, did you see anything that permits the House to amend the ratio of House members? Anything? Therefore, in order to limit the number of Representatives, we would need a Constitutional Amendment, similar to the 17th Amendment. Right? Instead, the specific Constitutional requirement of 1 Representative per 30,000 citizens was eliminated by a simple Act by the House of Representatives.
In Federalist Papers No. 58, James Madison, father of the Constitution, explained the ground rules for proportioning the House according to the population of each State:
…Within every successive term of ten years a census of inhabitants is to be repeated. The unequivocal objects of these regulations are, first, to readjust, from time to time, the apportionment of representatives to the number of inhabitants, under the single exception that each State shall have one representative at least; secondly, to augment the number of representatives at the same periods, under the sole limitation that the whole number shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand inhabitants…
The Permanent Apportionment Act Of 1929
Passed by House on June 11, 1929
On this date, the House passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435. The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons. Thus, the size of a state’s House delegation depended on its population. But the founders were vague as to how large future Congresses should be and what method to use to reapportion the House after each federal census. (AJ Comment: Umm, See Article V, i.e. Constitutional Amendment) These questions vexed Congress for much of its history as U.S. territories expanded and the population grew. Usually, the House reapportioned itself in a manner that increased, or at least preserved, the representation of most states. Gradually, however, the method for calculating apportionment caused smaller rural states to lose representation to larger urbanized states (AJ Comment: As if it still doesn’t cause smaller rural states to lose representation to larger urbanized states today). A battle erupted between rural and urban factions, causing the House (for the only time in its history) to fail to reapportion itself following the 1920 Census (AJ Comment: After 1920 Census, there should have been 483 members, but GOP RINOs were afraid of losing power).
Signed into law on June 18, 1929, the Permanent Apportionment Act capped House Membership at the level established after the 1910 Census and created a procedure for automatically reapportioning House seats after every decennial census. Republican Majority Leader John Q. Tilson of Connecticut approvingly declared that the act dispelled the “danger of failing to reapportion after each decennial census as contemplated by the Constitution.” But opponents, such as William B. Bankhead of Alabama, who doubted its constitutionality, had earlier described the plan as “the abdication and surrender of the vital fundamental powers vested in the Congress of the United States by the Constitution itself.” In 1941, Congress adopted the current formula for reapportioning House seats.
See what the Republicans did there? And we wonder why Nancy Pelosi thinks she can act the way she does now. The old “give us an inch, we’ll take a mile” trick. Here they looked back to the 1910 Census, where the Constitution was first violated with regards to apportionment, but no pushback of consequence occurred. So let’s take a look there to complete the trifecta picture.
The 1911 House Reapportionment
Passed on August 08, 1911
On this date, President William H. Taft signed legislation increasing the membership of the House from 391 to 433, with provisions to add two more Members when New Mexico and Arizona became states. The legislation took effect after March 3, 1913, at the end of the 62nd Congress (1911–1913). Debate on the bill, however, raised concerns that the House was growing to an unwieldy size. “Members are . . . supposed to reflect the opinion and to stand for the wishes of their constituents,” declared Representative Edgar Crumpacker of Indiana, who chaired the House Committee on the Census. “If we make the ratio [of persons per Representative] too large the idea of representation becomes attenuated and less definite. The personal interest of the voter in his representative becomes less important to him, and we may lose something of the vital strength of our representative form of government.” In 1920, partly because of a fear of a large House, Congress failed to apportion the House for the first time after a decennial census.
To recap; the Constitution was violated 3 times in order to restrict the size of the House:
- Skipping the mandated reapportionment after the 1920 Census.
- Passing the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act instead of proposing a Constitutional Amendment, like the 17th,
- Using the 1910 Census apportionment as the ceiling of 435 members.
Look at the timing. It was shortly after the 1st World War, and troops were returning home in the midst of the Spanish Flu pandemic. Funny how “pandemics” are used as an excuse to suspend the Constitution.
And for those so inclined, there’s a rabbit hole to explore in which the only flu deaths came from those who took the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research vaccine (Backup PDF here). For the WWI recruits that passed through bootcamp at Ft Riley, KS, they were forced to take that experimental vaccine. Yes, it was experimental. The other deaths and or injuries came from mask mandates that were enforced then. Sound familiar with the COVID-19 mask hysteria?
The country was in turmoil and trying to readjust to the “new normal”. This was the opportunity for the deep state to take advantage of the Great Migration of African-Americans from the rural South to Northern urban centers lasting from 1916 until 1970, hitting a peak in the 1920s. For example, Detroit’s African-American population, which had increased by 600 percent during World War I, increased another 200 percent between 1920 and 1930.
Not only that, there was a large migration of veterans leaving the rural country to take up jobs in the industrialized cities. So while Americans were preoccupied with a paradigm shift in standards of work and living, Congress decided to restrict representation to 435 instead of raising it to 485 (1920 Census) in accordance with established procedure. If anyone was inclined to protest this unconstitutional Act, the Great Depression sealed the deal as Americans immediately shifted focus from pursuing a better life to a nationwide life or death struggle just to survive.
4 months after passing the Reapportionment Act of 1929, we fell into the Great Depression beginning with the stock market crash. This allowed the Federal Reserve to reset our economy to the then “new normal” (don’t you love how old terminologies and themes get recycled?). The Great Depression was the worst economic downturn in the history of the industrialized world, lasting from 1929 to 1939, which sent Wall Street into a panic and wiped out millions of investors. Over the next several years, consumer spending and investment dropped, causing steep declines in industrial output and employment as failing companies laid off workers. By 1933, when the Great Depression reached its lowest point, some 15 million Americans were unemployed and nearly half the country’s banks had failed.
The first day of the crash was Black Thursday, 25 October, falling 11%. On Black Monday, October 28, the Dow again fell 13.47% in spite of Wall Street trying to shore it up by propping it up 0.6% on the prior Friday. On Black Tuesday, October 29, the Dow fell another 11.7%. Black Monday and Tuesday were among the four worst days in Dow history. They were followed by two subsequent crashes; 22.61% decline on the 2nd Black Monday 1987 and a 12.93% drop during the 2020 stock market crash.
Nowadays, when we think of “Black”, we think of Black Friday as an opportunity to “save” by buying on credit which nets the Central Bank more interest, SMH.
And today, China Joe Biden and his cabal of thugs in Treasury and Federal Reserve Bank are talking up a coming reset in which they will “6uild it 6back better” for their new world order.
Great Depression History
The Great Depression was the worst economic downturn in the history of the industrialized world, lasting from 1929 to 1939. It began after the stock market crash of October 1929, which sent Wall Street into a panic and wiped out millions of investors. Over the next several years, consumer spending and investment dropped, causing steep declines in industrial output and employment as failing companies laid off workers. By 1933, when the Great Depression reached its lowest point, some 15 million Americans were unemployed and nearly half the country’s banks had failed.
A lot more in an easy to digest format with documentary videos at the source link above…
Coincidence? Or all connected via a long, long term plan by the cabal of bankers? Whether you believe it or not; consider that this year’s Tax Day fell on the 109th anniversary of the Titanic sinking on 15 April 1912. The sinking in April of 1912 derailed efforts to prevent the establishment of the Federal Bank in December of 1913 and 6 months later World War 1 in Europe began. And in-between, the 16th Amendment was ratified to turn every American into secured collateral for borrowing money from the Federal Reserve Bank and the 17th ratified to strip State governments of their representation. Then in the middle of WWI, the Death Tax was instituted. And shortly after the House of Representatives permanently set at 435, the Great Depression kicked off the first Reset.
Do take the time to check it out and refresh your memory of history during that tumultuous time. Includes Hooverville, Dust Bowl, the New Deal, enactment of Social Security and a few more you may have forgotten about. Government creates a problem, then comes to the rescue with solutions… Classic. But then again, we’ve been there before when President Andrew Jackson defeated the 2nd US Bank over the objections of Congress and their powerful friends.
This is also why efforts to term limit Congress are well-intentioned but misguided. It falls short of any meaningful devolution. Term limits does nothing to unravel past abuses and only ensures a steady new crop of connected politicians getting in line for their turn at pocketing a lifelong pension, after “serving” a couple of terms, at the teat of taxpayers.
And you can be sure that if the Federal Reserve Bank, a private bank run for centuries by a powerful cabal, is allowed to exist after 2022, anything we do to “drain the swamp” will come to naught. The Central Bank will print as much money as it needs to hold sway over the politicians and executive level bureaucrats that really run DC. Devolution is that holistic approach we need to completely to drain the
swamp sewer and strip the rats that infest it of their ill-gotten power.
One might argue that Devolution is not complete merely by backing up to the way it was before January 1871 and I agree. I look at Devolution as two significant phases. Because the February 1871 Organic Act, re-establishes the United States as a corporation under the control of a foreign entity, this is the biggest hurdle (phase 1) in getting Americans to understand that our Constitution is just a piece of paper, as long as the USA Corporation exists. Once we cross that Rubicon, it is easy enough then to also tackle the ‘Constitutionally repugnant‘ (downloadable) 13th and 14th Amendments (phase 2).
Consider the following relevant portions of the Constitution:
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
Violation: Everyone in the southern states was, in a blanket fashion, declared guilty of rebellion and penalized [charged for war reparations, redefined as criminals and Municipal slaves] via unlawful military rule.
Article 4, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
The violation here is that 39th Congress unlawfully denied the Southern States a republican form of government by appointing military “governors” over the “rebel” States, who then appointed both State and U.S. Representatives and Senators. It was these de facto States that ratified the 14th, which stripped away the State citizenship and made Americans citizens of the United States but merely residents of their respective State. Furthermore, it did not attain the necessary 3/4th ratification, de facto States notwithstanding.
The 13th, is also problematic in that it was ratified at the tail end of of the Civil War, December 1965, without the support of a “Republican form of State government”. Because this Amendment is otherwise important, my recommendation would be to have the States re-ratify the 13th; both to negate ongoing debate over its legitimacy and as a precedent for dealing with future Amendments that might be questioned as fraudulent.
However long it takes, basically what a post-Devolution America would look like is that the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments are repealed, thus restoring the parts of the Constitution before it was hijacked by statist progressives. Whether any other Amendments ought to be kept or repealed aren’t germane to the discussion of Term Limits, but a worthy subject for a future article.
Repealing the 14th, which was illegally adopted in 1886, since the necessary three-fourths of the States did not ratify it, will reinstate direct taxation of the States. Meaning that the Federal Government would once again submit an annual bill based on the enumeration of the inhabitants of the States, since we would no longer be “citizens of the United States”, rather, we’d revert to being citizens of our respective States, in which case, the Federal government has no right to tax us directly.
Also noteworthy, with regards to the aforementioned ERA which could still become part of the Constitution any day now; 2 states rescinded their ratification of the 14th, but were “nullified” by the cabal eager to reap the new “normal” — and never tested by SCOTUS. This amendment also has a long string of abuses tied to it, but that’s an article in of itself.
Repealing the 16th, would scrap the current one-to-one relationship that the Federal Government has with each and every person in America. As previously mentioned, the 16th, allows the government, through its agencies to bypass the Constitutional safeguards afforded by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments (have you figured it out yet? Not to worry, it will be addressed in the next article soon). As a result, the IRS will be eliminated and the Federal government would revert back to collecting revenues via tariffs, imposts, duties and fees.
Repealing the 17th, means that States can once again appoint their Senators via the executive/legislative branches and no longer would Senators prostitute themselves to lobbyists and corporate cronies at the national level. By the same token, it is of no concern to the nation at large if a particular State chooses to return the same Senator to DC term, after term. More likely, Senators will be term limited by the nature of ever changing State governments. Even if a majority winds up being perpetual Senators, at least they don’t hold the power of the purse, so let them play their reindeer games with their State government.
The above is a short list of Constitution fixes. But hand in hand with rolling back the meaning and intent of our Supreme Law of the land, there is an ever growing list of government institutions that need to be exterminated with extreme prejudice, a couple I can think of where their HQ needs to be torn down and the ground salted. Kerry L. Morgan of the Lonang Institute has compiled a growing list of “Unlawful and Unconstitutional Federal Agencies – The List (So Far)” that’s worth a visit. It’s too bad that President Reagan didn’t dismantle the Department of Education. If you think it’s bad now, just understand it didn’t just happen overnight. As far back as Y2K, Texans were grappling to bring the school boards to heel. It was only about 8 years earlier that SCOTUS banned High School teams from having a prayer before and or after games. Check out “the “Texas Public Policy Foundation Social Studies Textbook Review July 2002“. We have our work cut out to devolve government and their institutions from the local school boards all the way up to the Federal. Carpe Diem and get started whenever and wherever you can to get that movement rolling. To paraphrase pResident Oboobie, “We-The-People are the change we’ve been waiting for”… LOL
So What About The House Membership?
As you have just read, even back then, our “betters” told us that membership was getting too big. Riiiight—Too big for business as usual. And to this day, even our Constitutional pundits tell us it is logistically impossible; That the House Chamber can’t possibly hold more than perhaps 500 at a sitting. Therefore we need TERM LIMITS ASAP! NOT! Nary a mention of anything “innovative”, like devolving the government back to 1871 and leveraging technology, to bring the House under control aside from simply “we must have term limits”.
Anyone with a smidgen of knowledge about telecoms and information technology knows that this logistical and technical issue was mooted about 20 years ago. IT professionals like myself saw it coming even far earlier, but we had to wait for widespread deployment of high speed data, faster personal CPU processing and improved encryption. Nancy Pelosi confirmed it when due to muh Corona, she unilaterally sent lawmakers home to remote in their votes on several occasions. We have the technology, so what valid reason is there to NOT repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and amend the Constitution to adapt to remote operations in the business of governance in the 21st Century and beyond?
Notwithstanding the Constitution’s stipulation that the whole number shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand inhabitants, others have studied the matter of how best to ensure a more fair representation of the people. The following article encapsulates two of the leading proposals.
Why 435? How We Can Change the Size of the House of Representatives
By Daniel Greenberg October 12, 2017
Extracted & Redacted for context
Full Article: https://www.fairvote.org/how_we_can_change_the_size_of_the_house_of_representatives
The Constitution does not set the size of the House of Representatives. Until the 1920s, its size changed after every census, expanding to reflect the nation’s growing population. However, the 1920 census created controversy within Congress over which states should receive new seats. A resolution emerged in 1929 when the size of the House was frozen at what it happened to be after the 1910 census – 435 seats – regardless of population growth.
The “Wyoming Rule” takes the population of the fifty states and divides it by the population of the smallest state, which then would serve as the number of congressional districts to be apportioned. The seats are then apportioned to the fifty states. This method prioritizes fairness between districts: The population of the smallest state will also be the average population of congressional districts overall.
The “Cube Root Rule” would instead have the national legislature always be the cube root of the total population of the nation. The House would be the cube root of the U.S. apportionment population minus 100 (to account for the 100 United States senators). Political scientists have found that national legislatures often approximate the cube root of their populations. This method prioritizes responsiveness to population changes. As the population grows, so too does Congress.
The number of seats apportioned by the Wyoming Rule based on the 2010 census increases the number of representatives by 109 from 435 representatives to 544, with 40 states receiving at least one additional representative. Based on population projections, applying the Wyoming Rule to the 2021 redistricting would result in 577 seats, with 43 states seeing an increase compared to a House size of 435.
The Cube Root Rule would apportion 576 seats to the states following 2010, with 43 states receiving at least one additional representative. Population projections suggest that following 2020, 592 seats would be apportioned out with 45 states receiving additional seats compared to a House size of 435.
In either case, the largest share of the additional seats goes to the larger states like California, Texas, and New York, but almost every state would see some increase in its number of representatives.
The Wyoming Rule’s ideals of equity seem reasonable, but it neither tracks overall population nor does it protect against the possibility of the House becoming huge. In fact, if the Wyoming Rule had been used in 1920, the House would have had 1,360 Members, and that number would have decreased every decade until 1990, even as the population grew.
The Cube Root Rule provides a better fit between population and the size of the House, but it lacks the intuitive value of matching the size of districts to that of the smallest state. Though both methods have their strengths and weaknesses, either would make voting power across state lines more equal.
Devolution of Congress: What If We Return To The Way We Did It up to 1910?
While the above Wyoming Rule and Cube Root Rule offers alternative solutions, what if we continued relying on solely the Census and updated eligibility criteria for enumerating the Representatives.
Consider that we have 3,083 Counties, majority of which are rural. Given our current population, we’re looking at around a max of 11,000 Representatives (330million/30,000). However, not everyone qualifies for representation, so depending on the actual criteria, i.e., residents vs. citizens, adults only and or if Tribal Nation Indians are included etc, the number of actual representatives could be as low as just 1,000 or 1,500 members.
All of this would need to be debated and analyzed carefully. Who do we enumerate for representation and who is granted the voting franchise? Case in point; by not counting minors, adults with children would be marginalized. E.g. A district with 30k adults gets one representative, but if that district also had 30k minors which are counted for representation, then district is split into 2 districts?
Contrary to popular beliefs, voting is not an unalienable right, rather it is a privilege of citizenship. Thus there are ideas about whom should have the privilege of voting idea floating around for limiting representation, the following and or combinations thereof have some merit for consideration:
- Raise the voting age up from 18 — voters liable to be more fiscally responsible.
- Restrict the franchise to property owners — they have a vested interest in a sustainable government.
- Restrict the franchise to soldiers and veterans — they are serving the country; or served, and paid the price of freedom, often with permanent injury or worse with their lives.
- Restrict to adults with children — they have invested in the future and the generations that would inherit the country unlike non-parents. Think about it, why should non-parents have any say about who is elected to school boards?
- Bar those who net more in taxpayer handouts than pay into the system — Even if the 16th is eliminated, the States could still seek to collect taxes via an income tax. Furthermore, this could be written to override the “parental” franchise, otherwise welfare parents would vote for more ‘gimmedats‘
As for physical presence, i.e. in DC, Article 1, Section 4 only states that they “shall meet at least once a year”. So let’s just have them stay in their home districts full-time except for the occasional meeting to be held at a DC convention hall for a few days.
Note: Subject to a Constitutional Amendment, it doesn’t have to be “per 30,000”, it could be “100,000” or some other ratio. The key is that with more representation, we get closer to the consent and will of the people at large. Extreme proposals in either direction would be shot down very early in the legislative process.
For starters, this necessitates some fundamental changes to the way that the House does business as follows:
- They can do business remotely from their home district, either at home or from a small office in town.
- GSA establishes reasonable office space costs as a function of per-diem monthly rates.
- Space Command responsible for establishing standards in managing Congress’ IT system using best practices and best commercial-off-the-shelf technology, including authentication, telepresence, security etc.
- GSA responsible for procurement of above technology.
- When meeting in the Capitol for their constitutional, ‘At least once a year’, they can rent conference space.
Pros Of More House Members
Assuming 1 per 30k rule, we could see as many as 11,000 members in the House (330 million ÷ 30,000) or proportionally fewer depending on an agreed upon ratio i.e. 3,300 members (330 mil/100,000) etc
Example – Wyoming has a population of 578,000 and 23 counties, thus could have as many as 19 Representatives. Largest 2 counties, Laramie & Natrona have populations of 99.7k and 79.1k, smallest 2 counties, Niobrara & Hot Springs have 2.3k and 4.5k.
Example – Texas has a population of 29.7 million and 254 counties, thus could have as many as 990 Representatives. Largest 2 counties, Harris & Dallas, have populations of 4.8 mil and 2.6 mil, smallest 2 counties, Loving & King, have just 180 and 294 respectively. 159 counties have a population of less than 30k.
Population Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties
- Harder to gerrymander, when a city like Houston would have approximately 160 Representatives. Imagine that for the average Houston resident, that Representative is going to be someone from their neighborhood and or school district. Certainly enough to counterbalance or even cancel out a flock of Sheila Jackson-Lees.
- This makes them readily accessible to constituents.
- As long as Representatives satisfy their constituents, legislative experience can be retained that is otherwise lost due to term-limits. Important, considering all bills originate in the House.
- 11k Representatives weakens the party apparatus and makes Speaker of House a figurehead. If one wants to see multiple parties flourish, this would be the path forward.
- Difficult to steamroll any bills that are unpopular with the general public, especially when a minority segment that has enough representation to derail the effort.
- Lobbyist can’t practically throw money at half the candidates running for office, let alone all of them.
- Government that rules least, rules best.
Cons Of More House Members
- Unable to “do the people’s business” in DC year round due to space and logistical limitations.
- Slows the pace of legislation generated. By necessity, it requires smaller focused bills in order to pass anything of significance.
- Unable to develop face-to-face relationships with so many fellow members.
Addressing Other Issues In Amendment Proposal
While we’re at it, let us consider other improvements to Congress that should be added to an Amendment proposal dealing with restrictions on the House membership.
- First off; call for a special census to get the best possible data on status of all persons residing in the U.S. within 6 months of ratification. This special census shall be concerned only with enumerating the people and not the usual statistical data. And shall go into effect no later than the second election cycle after ratification – this gives us about 2 to 3 years to prepare for the significant changes to the House membership. The census should only be concerned with the following data:
- Legal name.
- Citizenship; U.S. Citizen, Resident Alien (+country of origin), Indian Nation, Visa Status and Illegal Alien (+country of origin).
- Illegals must accurately report their status, # of years and whether false documents were used to facilitate their stay. This will not be used for ICE to find them, but if apprehended by ICE and verified to have falsely reported their status will be immediately deported upon collection of bio-metric data and be permanently banned from even visiting the U.S. regardless of “familial ties” to other persons. Any assets and or possessions will be forfeited. The illegals that accurately report their status will be entitled to adjudication and due process in accordance with prevailing immigration laws.
- For the rest, any falsification may be subject to fines.
- Gender; Biological male or female.
- Marital Status; Married, Head of Household, Divorced, Single.
- Age and month/year of birth.
- Residence and # of years in current State. If less than 2 years, provide previous State and # of years there.
- The census shall be undertaken by the U.S. Post Office delivering a letter, utilizing their patented blockchain technology to every residence in the country. Upon receiving the letter, the residents, including roommates, shall go online and use the blockchain code to validate and log in to a portal hosted by the USPO to complete the form. This allows the USPO to “close the loop” on the blockchain (keeping the blockchain in-house) before passing the resultant data to the Census Bureau. Multiple sessions are allowable, e.g. for roommates to enter their data individually.
- For nomads, homeless or those that didn’t receive/lost a letter shall go to the local Post Office and pick up the form with the blockchain. The Post Offices and local libraries shall also facilitate the online access for individuals that are “offline”.
- For residents of nursing homes and assisted living facilities, the Census bureau shall provide enumerators to physically visit each resident and collect the data.
- Make it a Constitutional requirement that Senators and Representatives and their family members get a complete forensic financial audit by independent auditors every two years and the results 100% published publicly for anyone to see, no exceptions. Financial disclosures don’t cut it anymore, as it is dependent on the politician to be “honest”.
- Do away with pensions for both Representatives and Senators and reduce salaries and staff.
- Restrict all Congress members to just 1 aide entitled to federal pay (w/o pensions). Enumerated positions, such as Speaker of House, Senate Majority Leader and perhaps top 3 Congressional leaders limited to 2 or 3 aides with federal pay (no pension)?
- States can self-fund additional aides, if they wish.
- That DC is the Federal administrative district, 10 miles square and shall never be entitled to representation; neither in the House, nor Senate. Nor shall it have a civilian administrator, e.g. elected mayor. It shall be administered by a governor who shall also be the Commanding General of District National Guard as appointed by the designated House committee responsible for its caretaking.
- Codify the bullets in the aforementioned pros and cons listed above as applicable.
Additional Issues in Reshaping Congress
- Abandon Washington DC and establish a new Capitol of 10 square miles in the heart of the US. Ideally where 3 or more states would border it. For instance, where Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri meet.
- DC is full of Masonic/Satanic symbolism. We simply cannot have the seat of our federal government coexisting with these objects of idolatry. Either move the government or raze every last one of these symbols.
- Aside from enumerated agencies, abolish those that are redundant to State agencies and scatter the rest of the headquarters throughout the 50 States.
- Restrict embassies from locating within a 10 mile radius. This would be for security reason, namely spying with line of sight technologies etc. As well as any other attempts to interfere or induce injuries through the use of technology – I’m thinking of what Cuba is accused of doing to our personnel at Guantanamo Bay and at the U.S. Embassy in Havana causing long-term health issues.
- Restrict lobbyists from setting up office/residence within no less than a 100 mile radius.
- Since the elected are supposed to be residents of their respective home States and districts, consider building long-term lodging facilities for all of them to live in while working in the “New DC”. That way, they will not need to uproot their families to live with them and it negates the temptation for arranging sweetheart deals with lobbyists for their accommodations and or purchasing a home there.
Dear Reader, your thoughts and suggestions are welcome, so please add to the discussion by commenting below.
Tags: Devolution, Term Limits, 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, Permanent Appropriations Act of 1929, Article V(5) Convention of States, Article 1 Section 2, Article 1 Section 3, Article 1 Section 4, Federalist Paper No. 53, Federalist Paper No. 85,1911 House Re-apportionment, Titanic, Federal Reserve Act, Federal Reserve Bank, Income Tax, WWI, Great Depression, Social Security, New Deal, Devolving the Constitution, Senate, Senator, House of Representatives, Wyoming Rule, Cube Root Rule, The Texas Plan, Convention of States Action (COSAction), US Term Limits Organization (USTL)