Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Please find my responses below to Mr. Perna.

Expand Messages
  • ser_dick@yahoo.com
        Please find my responses below to Mr. Perna.   Bill Walker FOAVC co-founder www.foavc.org http://foavc.org ... Constitutional Convention Friday, March
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 9, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
       
       

      Please find my responses below to Mr. Perna.
       
      Bill Walker
      FOAVC co-founder
      www.foavc.org
      http://foavc.org
      ----- Original Message -----

      Constitutional Convention
      Friday, March 6, 2009 7:25 AM
      From: "John Perna" <savefreedom2005@...>
       
       
      Constitutional Convention
      http://targetfreedo m.typepad. com/targetfreedo m/2009/02/ constitutional- convention. html
       
      The Constitutional convention is a conspiracy to destroy our republic: nothing more and nothing less.
      Those who do not understand this have no business posting in this group.
      The real question about Constitutional Convention is this:
      Do we need to give the power to write a new constitution to the very people who have been ignoring, usurping, and trying to destroy the constitution that we have now?
      Response: Mr. Perna considers Article V of the United States Constitution to be a "conspiracy." There are several problems with Mr. Perna's statements. First of all, he assumes the power to tell who can post on this posting--arrogance at its most extreme. As to his question, it is obvious he can't read Article V and he also lies (and I don't use that term unless I can prove it  which I will below) about what people have said either by misquoting them or in this case simply not telling all that was said.
      Article V does not grant any power that Mr. Perna states. It states twice that amendments can only be "part of this Constitution," meaning of course any action in the amendatory process must result in an amendment to our present Constitution. There is no legal opinion whatsoever to contradicts this point and as always Mr. Perna fails to provide any legal references to back up his outlandish opinions and statements. I'll get to the ones below in a moment.
      Second, Mr. Perna fails to prove there is a conspiracy at all. If there was, given that the government could have taken the actions Mr. Perna says any time in the last century and hasn't this fact alone defeats Mr. Perna's assertions. If anyone was interested in a conspiracy as Mr. Perna suggests, what have they been waiting for and if they are so powerful to do what he suggests why do they have to bother with a convention call by Congress in order to put their nefarious plan into action? In short, Mr. Perna wants everyone to believe a powerful group is conspiring to overthrow the constitution by replacing it with a new document and has the political power to do so, but is so politically impotent they can't act unless Congress issues a call which, apparently they have no power whatsoever, to cause in order to effect and execute their conspiracy. I remind everyone: all 50 states have applied over 700 times for a convention and these convention
      applications have been in effect and able to cause a convention call for nearly all of the last century.
      The video below is made specifically for state legislators, by a state legislator.
      Constitutional Convention is explained. 
       
      Beware Article V
      http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=za8_pdJ1dPo&feature=channel_ page
       
      Beware Article V (part 1 of 4)
      http://youtube. com:80/watch? v=za8_pdJ1dPo 
      Beware Article V (part 2 of 4)
      http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=flHJrcdfbBg&feature=related
       
      Beware Article V (part 3 of 4)
      http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=ly1Lh3bqtYM&feature=related
      Beware Article V (part 4 of 4)
      http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=Z5jKAlgvCgg&feature=related
       
      Response: As long as you're looking at movies on Youtube, then you should look at the FOAVC responses on these videos:
       
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-R-2tZBE1Q
       
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCuo6kBkHdc
       
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcXmjwpHyM
       
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sN6anvau7I
       
       
       
      A Constitutional Convention is not a procedure for making a small change.
      A Constitutional Convention is not a procedure for enforcing an existing law.
      A Constitutional Convention is a procedure for giving us an ENTIRELY NEW Constitution.
      THERE IS NO WAY TO "LIMIT" a Constitutional Convention TO ONE ISSUE.
      If you want one amendment, then you present an amendment.
      You do not put the ENTIRE Constitution at risk for one amendment.
      The only reason that Constitutional Convention is being promoted as the solution TO JUST ONE problem, is that the hidden agenda would be considered to be outrageous.
       
      If government ignores the constitution and usurps power now, what would we have if they could write a new constitution?
       
      THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "for a balanced budget". THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to return power to the states."
      THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to stop illegal aliens."
      THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to restore the right to keep and bear arms".
      THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to limit terms".
       
      Response: Yes there is. It's called different amendments to our present Constitution to address issues such as this at the constitutional level. AGAIN I REPEAT: THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN ARTICLE V AND AS IT IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUITON IT CANNOT HAPPEN. NOTICE ONE THING: ARTICLE V DESCRIBES THE CONVENTION AS A "CONVENTION TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS" NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Therefore Mr. Perna is litterally putting words in the Constitution that do not exist then making accusations based on his own creation of words that are not in the Constitution in the first place. Again, arrogance at its height!!
       
      THERE IS only one kind of Constitutional Convention.
      THE only kind of Constitutional Convention; that can be convened is
      a Constitutional Convention to write a new Constitution.
       
      A Constitutional Convention is a legislative body;
      which operates ABOVE the limitations of the Constitution.
      This makes it more powerful, and MORE DANGEROUS, than any other legislative body.
      This is not an opinion, but it if a fact of law.
      A Constitutional Convention is a means of DESTROYING the American Republic. A Constitutional Convention is opening a "Pandora's box" for RADICAL change. Once the "genie is out of the bottle" no one can control it.
       
      The last time that we had a Constitutional Convention was in 1787,
      when we got the Constitution that we now have.
       
      Response: Congress called the convention to make the changes Mr. Perna refers to but he doesn't tell the full truth. The Constitution made it clear the Articles of Confederation were to be terminated (See Article I, Section 10, Clause 1..."no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation..." This document was first passed by Congress before it was submitted to the states. Any implication by Mr. Perna to the contrary simply isn't backed by historic facts. Further the call by Congress made it clear the convention was to make changes to "the constitution" so that it was up to the needs of the people. You can read a very detailed discussion of it in Federalist 40 written by James Madison.
       
      That Constitutional Convention was convened to make some small changes in the Articles of Confederation. Instead we got a new Constitution.
      We were LUCKY that time.
      Those who were at that Constitutional Convention were the leaders of a freedom movement;
      which had just defeated a tyranny.
       
      Our problem has NOTHING to do with the constitution.
      Our problem has to do with the IGNORING OF THE constitution.
      Those who ignore the constitution would like nothing better than to make their usurpation legal,
      by throwing out the constitution, at a Constitutional Convention.
      It was ILLEGAL usurpation that has enabled an "elite" class to hijack our nation.
      It is that "elite" class; who want to con foolish people into destroying the constitution.
      The constitution is the best document for the protection of freedom,
      that has ever been written.
      We only need to adhere to it.
       
      Response: Mr. Perna says "we only need to adhere to it [the Constitution]. Then says we should not adhere to it by not obeying part of it, that is Article V . Article V states if the states apply in sufficient number, Congress must call. Mr. Perna says the solution to this in order to prevent those who want to disobey the Constitution  (and notice he never gives any names or proof these people even exist) is to do the very same thing he says they want to do.
       
      YES, The Founding Fathers saw a possibility of a situation,
      where a need might arise for COMPLETELY SCRAPING THE CONSTITUTION.
      That is not what has happened TODAY.
      The only thing that has happened is that there is now a kabal of would be tyrants;
      who are getting tired of OCCASIONALLY having to adhere to the constitution. 
      These would be tyrants would like to con enough ignorant people into letting them DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION,
      so that they can usher in totalitarianism.
       
      Having a Constitutional Convention would be like letting your worst enemy
      give you a heart and lung transplant, and a castration,
      as a cure for hiccups.
       
      Having a Constitutional Convention would be like burning the house down
      as a means of accomplishing pest control.
       
      Article V of The Constitution lays out the only two ways to change The Constitution:
       
      1.  The Amendment process: A specific, and clearly defined, change that is limited to what is written in the amendment.
       
      2.  The Constitutional Convention: A process to scrap the entire constitution and replace it with something else. ANY type of amendment can be considered.
       
      Response: A simple reading of Article V shows Mr. Perna doesn't know what he is talking about. Both methods are merely ways to propose amendments to the present Constitution.
       
      Here is a clear statement of the difference between the effect of The Amendment process and calling for a Constitutional Convention:
       
      "If you have the best automobile in the world, you don't throw it away if the carburetor is not working. You fix it," he said. "The same is true of the Constitution. That's what the amendment process is all about."
                                U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger,
                                Boston Globe, August 21, 1987
       
      Response: Now to prove Mr. Perna is a liar. When you look at the full record of Mr. Burger which is stated in the videos I've cited as well as described in the following column, http://www.nolanchart.com/article6024.html will show that Burger's record is not reflected by Perna's careful statement. Oh yeah, by the way I forgot to mention, Mr. Perna got this quote from my column so he knows he told a lie by using just this quote. The fact is Burger is on public record as stating he didn't feel a convention was a threat or that it would remove any rights currently enjoyed by Americans. In short, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger refutes Mr. Perna.
       
      We understand that there are those who want to destroy the American constitution. We also understand that it would be foolish for those thugs to admit that it is their goal to destroy the American constitution. It would be much more clever if those thugs were to claim that they only wanted to make a few small changes. Of course, if it was true that they only wanted to make a few small changes, then they would not need a Constitutional Convention. They would simply propose those amendments.
       
       
      Response: Nice try Mr. Perna. Notice how he attempts to slip in the "propose those amendments" like somehow what he said above is going to be ignored. He stated there are "two" methods to amend the Constitution, amendment and convention. So what he is really saying is that only by proposal of Congress should we amend the Constitution. Of course he provides no proof Congress will propose an amendment we want if it effects themselves. He only raves on about threats he can't prove.
       
       
      Imagine this scenario:
      You wake up in the middle of the night to a noise in your living room.
      You grab your gun, and you find two thugs loading bags full of valuables.
      You hold the gun at the ready.
       
      One of the thugs says:
      "Now that is a really fine gun. But you really need to clean it. Why not hand it over to me, and I will clean it for you."
      The other thug says
      "Oh there is nothing to worry about. If you do not like the way he uses the gun then of course you can insist that he give it back!"
       
      You would say "How stupid do you think I am?"
       
      When we see someone asking us to hand over the gun of a constitutional convention, we must conclude that he is one of two things:
          1. He is an unbelievably stupid fool
      OR
          2. He is a thug, with an ulterior motive, who thinks that the WE are unbelievably stupid.
       
      There is a limit to the amount of time for which it is possible to assume that this is an unbelievably stupid suggestion, being made because of mere stupidity. Eventually it will become clear that we are dealing with a thug, with an ulterior motive, who thinks that the WE are unbelievably stupid.
      IT WILL BE JUST AS EASY to ignore a new constitution as it is to ignore the one that we have now.
       
      IT just will NOT BE NECESSARY to ignore a new constitution,
      since it will say what the New World Order wants it to say.
       
      The problem is not what the constitution SAYS.
      The problem is what OUR GOVERNMENT DOES.
      We need to change what OUR GOVERNMENT DOES.
      We do not need to change what the constitution SAYS.
       
      Response: Then, Mr. Perna says the government is a threat after he urges we rely on it to exclusively propose amendments that would be in our favor. That doesn't even make logical sense.
       
      TO LEARN THE TRUTH COME TO WWW.FOAVC.ORG AND READ THE TEXTS OF THE 700 PLUS APPLICATIONS FROM ALL 50 STATES.
      Constitutional Journal: A Correspondent' s Report from the Convention of 1787 (Hardcover)  by Jeffrey St. John (Author), Warren E. Burger (Foreword)
      http://www.amazon. com/gp/product/ 0915463423? ie=UTF8&seller=A1AVPSERX4QF 0E&sn=jperna12
      We Hold These Truths: A Reverent Review of the U. S. Constitution 1993 Revised Edition (Paperback) by Congressman Lawrence P. McDonald
      http://www.amazon. com/gp/product/ B001EEF7JK? ie=UTF8&seller=A1AVPSERX4QF 0E&sn=jperna12
       
      Are you looking for a book about defending liberty?
      Many rare and out of print books are still available.
      Look here:
      http://www.amazon. com/shops/ jperna12
       
      --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
      You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ArticleV" group.
      To post to this group, send email to ArticleV@...
      To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ArticleV+unsubscribe@...
      For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ArticleV?hl=en
      -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.