Texas Governor's Plan To Override Obama's Tyranny – Is a Con-Con AKA (Article V Convention) really a good idea at this time in history?

Texas Governor's Plan To Override Obama's Tyranny – Is a Con-Con AKA (Article V Convention) really a good idea at this time in history?

GovAbbot-Infowars-ConCon-PushSo my question is this:

  • How do we know we can trust the current Reps to uphold the Constitution and guard our rights when they have been just allowing Obama to continue breaking the laws.
  • A Con-Con seems to me like suicide at this time in history. How do we know the gun control theater isn’t the push people needed to call for a Con-Con which then leaves the Reps free to make decisions without our input according to the rules of a Con-Con.
  • This sounds too dangerous to me. How can we guarantee this doesn’t play right into the Globalist’s hands?
  • I think it would be more advantageous to push our Reps to accelerate Obama’s Impeachment.
  • I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t trust our current government with something this important because what’s to stop them from just re-writing our constitution, killing the current Amendments, and installing Sharia law?

— This feels like a trap to me…

I get that “We The People” are fed up to our eyeballs with Obama and his complete and utter lawlessness, but is this really the smartest option for the American people right now? At this critical time in the history of America?
Just look how the current Congress acquiesces to Obama’s every whim and executive order. Do you really believe that your representatives are going to be looking out for your best interests given their past track records?
Sure this SOUNDS great in theory but just look at reality, save for a very precious few, those representatives of the people in Washington have sold Americans down the river time and again and will continue to do so “UMPTINE TIMES”!
Pushing For Impeachment, the Better Alternative:
In my humble opinion, I would rather suggest pressuring our elected representatives to accelerate the current proposal to impeach Obama. This at least would remove him from the office and send a CRYSTAL CLEAR message to future Presidential candidates that “We The People” won’t allow this kind of lawless behavior in our country. Rather than hand the reins over to untrustworthy politicians, who only care about themselves, and “hope for the best” in an Article V Convention of the States.
Folks once an Article V Convention is under way we will no longer have ANY say in what changes can or will be made to our constitution. If this gets underway, I fear that America is finished and it will be no one elses fault because it will be “We The People” who gave our Rights and Liberty away.
So I say NO CON-CON! NO ARTICLE V CONVENTIONS! NOT NOW! It is too dangerous to our freedom to ignite an article V Convention at this time in history. There is WAY too much at stake and our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren are the ones who will ultimately pay the price for our lack of foresight…
There are others who are light years smarter than I am and they are saying the same thing:
* * *
Publius Huldah: (Lawyer, philosopher & logician.  Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution.)
Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amending our Constitution. Congress:

1. Proposes amendments, or

2. Calls a convention to propose amendments if 34 States apply for it.

The first method was used for our existing 27 amendments: Congress proposed them and sent them to the States for ratification or rejection.
Under the second method, Congress calls a convention. We have never had a convention under Article V. Such conventions are extremely dangerous. THIS is one of many articles which illustrate the danger, sets forth warnings from two of our Framers and two former US Supreme Court Justices, and explains why Delegates to a convention can NOT be controlled by State laws.
National conventions are dangerous because the Delegates have the plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification. The video by Chuck Michaelis at the bottom of THIS page explains these plenipotentiary powers. Such Delegates are the Sovereign Representatives of The People and have the power to impose a new Constitution. This has already happened in our history:

♦ At the Federal Convention of 1787, this plenipotentiary power was exercised to replace our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, with the Constitution we now have. On February 21, 1787, The Continental Congress called a convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. But instead of proposing amendments to our first Constitution, the Delegates wrote a new Constitution – the one we now have.

♦ Furthermore, the new Constitution had a new and easier mode of ratification: Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (p 8-9) provided that Amendments to the Articles had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States. But the new Constitution, drafted at the “amendments” convention of 1787, provided at Art. VII thereof that it would be ratified upon approval by only nine of the then existing 13 States.

So! Not only do Delegates to a national convention have this plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution; the precedent to do so has already been established.
Statists have been pushing for a convention for 50 years – ever since the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. They need a convention to get it imposed.
Several other Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention.
If there is a convention, the only issues will be (1) whose Constitution will be imposed by the Delegates; and (2) what new mode of ratification will be set forth in the new Constitution.
Section Source: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/open-letter-to-state-legislators-everywhere-the-other-side-of-the-article-v-convention-issue/
* * *
I could list many others who are also saying the same thing but that isn’t as important as you getting involved and making your voice heard. Think about it, it’s your future and your country too! If it were up to you would you throw it all away? You don’t have to let the situation go on out of your control, all you need to do to make a change is get involved and make your voice heard. Do it for your children and grandchildren if for no other reason, don’t they at least deserve a fighting chance?
1.) https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones/videos/10153837405178459/
2.) https://youtu.be/ZxKGOVZ5tZg
3.) https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/open-letter-to-state-legislators-everywhere-the-other-side-of-the-article-v-convention-issue/

3 thoughts on “Texas Governor's Plan To Override Obama's Tyranny – Is a Con-Con AKA (Article V Convention) really a good idea at this time in history?

  1. You entire premise is incorrect. An article five get together is a ‘convention of the States to propose amendments to the Constitution.’ It IS NOT a Con-Con (constitutional convention! That would absolutely be horrible and just as bad as you are trying to suggest, wrongly, that an article five would be.
    Please read the constitution and take a look at the information on ‘convention of States.com’.
    I am definitely opposed to a Con-Con and, BTW, the Congress HAS NO ROLE TO PLAY IN AN ARTICLE FIVE convention. They are informed when it is happening and, of course given the results. The Senate nor the President has any involvement, either. This makes it a safer method of correcting a LOT of things.

  2. Mickey,
    Not sure where you’re getting your information concerning a Convention of (the) States, as opposed to a Constitutional Convention.
    Delegates. A Convention (whichever) is composed of delegates, however these delegates are selected is only determined in speculation. So, the delegates could be chosen by population or states.
    Ratification. Of course the states would ratify amendments proposed to the U.S. Congress for proposing to the states. Whether the U.S. Congress chooses a ratifying convention & bypassing state legislatures or going through the state legislators are entirely up to the U.S. Congress.
    Convention Procedures. If you believe a convention can be controlled, must look to the Democratic convention where prayer was actually removed from the convention or Republican conventions to where the rules were changed is the precedence of convention procedures.
    This is to name a few of the issues with the convention. Once a “Convention of Delegates” are called, there’s nothing we can do to stop it. …and it can be used to platform whatever measures they deem necessary to be pushed.
    Please reconsider your position but most of all, consider the counterpoints that are being made concerning the dangers of a national convention.

  3. Mickey,
    You claim an Article V convention is not a constitutional convention, and that a constitutional convention would be dangerous. But you never defined what a constitutional convention is.
    Please provide the definition and its source, so that we can know what you are talking about.
    And by the way, check any law dictionary. They all define a constitutional convention as being an Article V convention. So I’m interested what source you are getting your definition from.

Got a comment? Then type it already! :P

LIVE: Now !
%d bloggers like this: