This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Martin Armstrong Warns Of 2016 Constitutional Convention

Tyler Durden's picture


Via Armstrong Economics,

A very interesting political development has taken place, but you can bet the Democrats will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent it. This week the state legislature of Michigan became the 34th state to demand a “Constitutional Convention” in the United States.  Pursuant to Article 5 of the US Constitution, if 2/3rds of the states call for such a convention, (meaning 34 states)  it MUST take place. We will see if this is actually honored. At the very least, there is no time requirement so this could be dragged out for years.

Nevertheless, in such a convention, the ENTIRE Constitution is subject to review and can be altered and changed. This could be everything from installing “social justice” to the dissolution of the federal government. Everything is on the table as if we were back in 1776 Philadelphia.

This is an unprecedented event to amend the U.S. Constitution emerging from the states. Normally, Congress proposes a bill to amend the Constitution as was the case with income tax. Keep this one on your radar – we are looking at the potential for real change good or bad.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:30 | 4622696 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

definitely bad.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:33 | 4622706 negative rates
negative rates's picture

Oh it will be a doozy of one.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:36 | 4622719 Nemo DeNovo
Nemo DeNovo's picture

"They" will drag this shit out for decades potetionaly IMO

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:37 | 4622729 Soul Glow
Soul Glow's picture


Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:42 | 4622739 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Well, maybe they can get rid of that "well regulated militia" shit in the 2nd amendment then, and get rid of any ambiguity. 

Or they will get rid of it all together, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

As long as they don't bring back prohibition, I guess it's all good.  Drink!!

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:45 | 4622764 Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris's picture

You don't need a piece of paper to tell you that you have the right to defend yourself against tyranny.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:48 | 4622781 Troll Magnet
Troll Magnet's picture

I just want to know which pro-Israeli will write the first, second and final draft.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:51 | 4622802 Atlas_shrugging
Atlas_shrugging's picture

The States bypass Congress. Read up boys

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:57 | 4622836 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Like everything coming out of those "hallowed halls," I have but observation...


Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:09 | 4622897 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

Islammo-Communist 2016 USA constitution courtesy of Ogolfer.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:25 | 4622969 Muppet Pimp
Muppet Pimp's picture

The dissolution of the USSR was round 1.  The dissolution of the USSA is round 2.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:30 | 4622988 Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

What Constitution?  Didn't Bush-o-bama set it aside?

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:33 | 4622998 Troll Magnet
Troll Magnet's picture

Yeah, but they didn't burn it (yet), so this might be a great opportunity for them to finish it off for good.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:25 | 4623179 merizobeach
merizobeach's picture

Term limits on Congress.  Constitutional convention is the only way it could happen.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:31 | 4623190 Gaius Frakkin' ...
Gaius Frakkin' Baltar's picture


The only way the current federal government allows a Constitutional Convention is if it has complete control over its delegation and agenda. Any other grouping of people will be dispersed with force. America is an empire and empires don't end with fools casting votes; they end by force or their own rot.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 20:09 | 4623326 AreaMan
AreaMan's picture

I propose the No Shit Amendment ... A government cannot unlawfully collect and analyze its entire citizenry's and of course non US Persons?? electronic communication. Ever. NO SHIT!

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 20:26 | 4623391 BeerMe
BeerMe's picture

How about?  The government can not and will not provide for you.  They will provide you no free shit.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 22:25 | 4623705 hobopants
hobopants's picture

I have an idea! lets get rid of everything from the start of Wilson's presidency forward and then leave the fucking thing alone. Oh and every other supplementary piece of legislation can only be made on the state level, will be up for review annually and can be tossed out at anytime by popular vote.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 05:12 | 4624104 zhandax
zhandax's picture

Agree in principal, but don't think leaving the constitution open to amendment by the idiots walking around today is good idea.  Let's get it enforced as it was, first.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 08:15 | 4624287 N2OJoe
N2OJoe's picture

'Muricans are WAY TOO STUPID to be amending the Constitution these days. THIS CAN ONLY END IN DISASTER

Oh look a new episode of dancing with the stars!!!

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 23:13 | 4623793 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bedwetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:  That a whole lot of people were confused
by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of Non Rights.

    ARTICLE I -- You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any form of wealth.   More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

    ARTICLE II -- You do not have the right to never be offended.
        This country is based on freedom, and that means the freedom for everyone,
        not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different
        opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots and probably always will be.

    ARTICLE III -- You do not have the right to be free from harm.
        If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not
        expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

    ARTICLE IV -- You do not have the right to free food and housing.
        Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help
        anyone in need but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generations
        of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

    ARTICLE V -- You do not have the right to free health care.
        That would be nice but, from the looks of public housing, we're just not
        interested in government run health care.

    ARTICLE VI -- You do not have the right to physically harm other people.
        If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised
        if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

    ARTICLE VII -- You do not have the right to the possessions of others.
        If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens,
        don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a
        place where you still won't have the right to a big screen TV or a life of

    ARTICLE VIII -- You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their
    lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience.
        We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from
        going to fight, if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire
        world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every
        little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

    ARTICLE IX -- You don't have the right to a job.
        All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you in
        hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of
        education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

    ARTICLE X -- You do not have the right to happiness.
        Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness --
        which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 04:42 | 4624114 zhandax
zhandax's picture

sk, what I post may be boring, but at least I typed it.  Roo Rah for the cut'n'paste team.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 06:25 | 4624175 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture


Thu, 04/03/2014 - 20:14 | 4623327 AreaMan
AreaMan's picture

Also the Furthering American Hegemony-Quadragintesimaly ammendment.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 23:09 | 4623788 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

I don't think the Federal Govt has any say in the matter.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 23:36 | 4623829 bh2
bh2's picture

Not if delegates meet in, say, Switzerland. There is no consitutional requirement that a constitional convention be held within the borders of the US. Nor is there any provision that the USG can prescribe the time, place, or manner of such a meeting.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:14 | 4622926 McMolotov
McMolotov's picture

Quoting Admiral Ackbar could get you droned. We all know terrrrrists shout his name when they self-detonate.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 22:39 | 4623733 hobopants
hobopants's picture

lol! nearly lost my soda thanks.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 00:03 | 4623873 Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

"We can't repel firepower of that magnitude!"

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:34 | 4623006 DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

Tyler will be in hog heaven on this. Countless article on how the delegates are compromising the right to bear arms to get concessions on the 'important' matters such as gay marriage. (Why is .GOV in the marriage business anyway?). Anyone who thinks they want to be a delegate needs to think back on all the phone and computer use and ask "what does the NSA have on me?". Only kiddie-porn addicts and tax cheats need apply.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:41 | 4623026 eatthebanksters
eatthebanksters's picture

The right to bear arms will never be repealed.  What will be changed is the role and scope of government, who can vote, citizenship, entitlements, free market issues, money in politics and term limits.

Its time to get rid of the career crony politiicans like Reid, Boehner, Pelosi, Waters, Lee, and a few more stupid, divisive (or both) idiots.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:10 | 4623128 zaphod
zaphod's picture

First up should be term limits. An individual gets 1 term in a federal office (house, senate, president) in their entire lifetime. That would go a long ways towards breaking down the 2 party system.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:40 | 4623224 odatruf
odatruf's picture

First up should be the implementation of a Constitutional Convention being automatically triggered every 20 years.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 20:05 | 4623312 Nick Jihad
Nick Jihad's picture

I can see it now:

 Article 1 of the Bill of Rights: Obamaphones for all, free!!!


Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:43 | 4623244 StupidEarthlings
StupidEarthlings's picture

Sounds good..but who decides this?

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 22:59 | 4623766 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Proposed amendments:

1. Congress shall make no Law abridging the freedom of production and trade.

2. Members of the Supreme Court are to be tested on an annual basis for competency regarding the US Consitution.

3. Senators shall be limited to two consecutive terms in office.

4. Representative shall be limited to three consecutive terms in office.

5. Executive orders shall be limited to minor adminstrative directives and subject to review by the Supreme Court.

6. All laws passed by Congress shall be reviewed on an annual basis for cost-effectiveness, and terminated if they increase the size of the Govt.

7. Supreme Court decisions shall automatically be subject to review and recall by a simple majority of US citizens.

8. ALL political contributions are subject to full disclosure to the citizenry.  (No more of this anonymous BS!)



Thu, 04/03/2014 - 23:26 | 4623820 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

The Supreme Court is hereby abolished. Common Law is hereby restored on the land. The entire US Federal Code is hereby abolished and repealed.

No member of the Bar can hold office. No one who has practiced law within the last 5 years can hold public office. Anyone holding public office, upon retirement from public office, shall be paid a suitable pension, and shall be prohibited from accepting any form of private employment for a period of 20 (twenty) years.

Time to start from scratch.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 00:05 | 4623879 Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

You missed the big one...

The Federal Government shall, for each fiscal year, have a balanced budget.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 05:00 | 4624123 zhandax
zhandax's picture

Congress can recall all federal judges and\or make their offices latrines in new mexico if they had a vested interest.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 05:11 | 4624131 effendi
effendi's picture

A balanced budget is good, but don't make it mandatory.

For example if Pearl Harbour happened and the US needed to run a deficit for a few years there needs to be that option. To stop politicians abusing that option make their renumeration tied to running a properly audited surplus. If there is a deficit  then politicians only earn the minimum wage for each year of deficit.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 14:49 | 4625790 forensicator
forensicator's picture

9. Congress shall be subject to the same laws they pass, no exceptions.

10. Congress' retirement shall consist of Soclal Security, and possbly a 401k

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:01 | 4622852 Manthong
Manthong's picture



Eliminate life tenure for SCOTUS

Term Limits for Congresss

Repeal the 17th Amendment

End the Fed


Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:07 | 4622884 Sofa King Confused
Sofa King Confused's picture

End the Fed and the Federal govt completely.......state govts are enough.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:51 | 4623056 Mercuryquicksilver
Mercuryquicksilver's picture

But the Constitution does not create the Fed in the first place.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:37 | 4623214 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

That 'as a good point actually. We did have a Bank of the United States unfortunately...and that was passed by mere law as well.

Some do consider it a cause of the Civil War actually.
Obviously it would be a cause for the North to secede from the South this go around.

I mean Florida, Texas and California haven't done well by the Fed?

Even South Carolina looks a little weak kneed with all this "free money" these daze.

Loiusianna, North Dakota, New York...that's about all that's needed to
"reform" this Union.

Let's get back to a PRIVATE banking Union and tell Dick Blovey to take a one way trip up the Freedom Tower.

The whole building is only worth the cost of the elevator ride.
No wonder electricity is so expensive.
Do they even have any tenants in any of those buildings?

And I mean ANY. (Insert all of mid-town Manhattan here too.)

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 20:29 | 4623398 BeerMe
BeerMe's picture


Repeal the 16th

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 20:31 | 4623406 Doubleguns
Doubleguns's picture

See Mark Levins liberty amendments, and no there will not be a runaway convention. We have a runaway fed govt right now that we need to get control of. This is the best way to do it. Take the power back for the states and eviscerate the Fed govt to a nub.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:22 | 4622958 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

That about sums it up.  Click on the "Learn More About Our Plan" link and get a 404 error.  No plan.  No process.  No design.  Pure chaos.  The end.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:45 | 4623248 AGuy
AGuy's picture

Call me cynical, but why do I believe this is going to bring about more socialism and more authoritism. 58% to 60% are on some sort of gov't handout. I don't see this moving into a direct of liberty and freedom. If anything I see the end of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th amendments. I stopped at the fourth since too many politicans plead "da fifth"

I think the DNC will leverage the consitution convention to take away rights, not restore them!



Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:59 | 4623299 zaphod
zaphod's picture

You're not going to get 75% of the states to agree to eliminating rights, CA and NY will go for it for sure but you need a longer list than that.

Federal bloat and cronyism on both sides is the only thing you might be able to get 75% of states to agree to because you need both D and R states, maybe if we're lucky the regulatory agencies that congress passed off responsiblilty to can be reduced.

Only congress is suppose to be able to pass laws after all. All of these "agencies" passing "regulations" is simply unconstitutional. 


Thu, 04/03/2014 - 22:31 | 4623719 AGuy
AGuy's picture

"You're not going to get 75% of the states to agree to eliminating rights, CA and NY will go for it for sure but you need a longer list than that."

Politicans are getting crafty these days by labeling bills that sound like they support freedom and liberty, but are the exact opposite. For instance, see the recent "Shield" law described as a law to protect free speech and journalism, but is the exact opposite. I don't think 3/4 of the states is a problem for the DNC. The only states that are smart enough right now is KY,WY, KA, AK and WV. The rest of the Red states in the 2012 election did not have large difference. TX is probably going blue in a few more years as refugees from Kalifornia move to TX and taint the state. There are a lot of people in the socialist states fleeing and relocating to the Red states to find jobs, but they still vote DNC after they move, and there is no way any conservatives/libertarians are going to recolate into the Socialists states. Socialism is spreading lilke a plague to all 50 states.  By 2016, the country will want even more socialism as the FSA movement grows and jobs continue to disappear.

I also think Barry may try to pull a fast one before 2016 and use the NDAA to seize power. All it will take is the RNC to not rasie the debt ceiling or using a false flag attack on US soil. Perhaps if China and Japan go to war it will be enough to declare an national emergecy and disband congress.

"Only congress is suppose to be able to pass laws after all. All of these "agencies" passing "regulations" is simply unconstitutional."

There is nothing Constitutional about the federal govt these days. Every line in the constitution is interpeted in a way to give them more power and authority than is permitted. Face it, the USA died and was replaced with the USSA. Neither Party (DNC, or RNC) is freedom loving. Both sides have the same agenda, they just target different groups of people.






Thu, 04/03/2014 - 20:02 | 4623307 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I agree, a Constitutional Convention is not a good idea. The people could wind up with the Bill of Rights obliterated in one fell swoop, instead of the steady bleeding out its getting now.

I for one will not hand over liberty for security, they're going to have to take it from me.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 23:56 | 4623393 odatruf
odatruf's picture

This is one of the few times we disagree, nmewn.  Any mechanism that circumvents DC stands a better chance than any plan that has to go through it.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 07:46 | 4624244 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

It would turn in to a "compromise fest", with a bunch of statists demanding every entitlement and govt gimme possible.   To reach consensus, the folks on the other side of the aisle would be expected to submit to their demands.  

Until the statists got their way, they would fuck up the process.


Look to the debt debate as an example.  


We don't have public servants capable enough for a con con.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 20:04 | 4623311 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

I am also cynical, but I believe a more likely outcome is transfer of existing power and authority from the FEDERAL executive, legislature, and judiciary to the STATES' counterparts.  The threshold is also 38 States not 34, since it doesn't do anything if it isn't ratified.  But I think the DNC is a non-factor because its power is predicated on carrying NY CA and IL, which are irrelevant even with a threshold of 38 equally weighted States.  However, I also think a Libertarian outcome is a fantasy, as opposed to traditional moderation.

from the wayback post recycling machine

That is 38 states, drop the 6 most radical at each end of the spectrum, and find an acceptable compromise amongst the remainder.

For Example, if a neutral outcome was desired, the "wishes" of the following 12 States could be entirely ignored, and it list could be shifted L/R but the difficulty is finding common ground (which is a lost skill in America)

Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Arkansas,

Vermont, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, California

When enough people finally wake up and realize that the current system is unsalvageablecompromise will be necessary.

It's a long way off, but probably a good idea to have a road-map just in case the country does finally get its head out of its ass...

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:55 | 4622825 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

"as if we were back in 1776 Philadelphia."

Yeah, about that...  Philly's a bit different than it was in 1776.

If it happens, DON'T do it anywhere near Philly.  Philly is the ultimate 1-party town.  54 voting precincts tallied 100% for Obama in 2012.  Zero votes for any other candidate- Republican, Libertarian, Independent.  Zero.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:59 | 4622845 Rainman
Rainman's picture

I regret I have but one green to give you.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:33 | 4623001 jimijon
jimijon's picture

HA! Chicago is a one party town. In fact many times there aren't even opposing parties besides democrats on the ballot!

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:24 | 4623169 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

Appointees tend to get favor in the belly of the beast.

Here is Jesse Jackson Jr's. replacement, (one trick gun grab pony) Robin Kelly-

When Kelly -- a friend of Obama, who attended her wedding - - is sworn into her seat, the House will have 232 Republicans and 201 Democrats, with two seats vacant. She had 71 percent of the vote to 22 percent for McKinley with 99 percent of precincts reporting, according to the AP tally.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:15 | 4622932 falconflight
falconflight's picture

It tickles when you talk, faggot.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:23 | 4623170 Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

The 20 companies that rule the country will write it. And they will bill the government for the time.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:49 | 4622787 Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture



Constitutional Convention? NBL!

[Not Bloody Likely...]


Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:59 | 4622846 negative rates
negative rates's picture

Good, we know you won't be prepared.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:04 | 4623108 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

How does one prepare for a Constitutional Convention?

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:25 | 4623177 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

3 B's.

Same as it ever was.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:56 | 4623289 odatruf
odatruf's picture

Same as always: be alert; Pb, Au, and Ag; and building a community of those like you.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:51 | 4622801 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

An ignored piece of paper.

DC would just ignore whatever any convention passed anyway, if Obozo doesn't

drone it  with Hellfires first.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:55 | 4622830 Troll Magnet
Troll Magnet's picture

Yeah...the U.S. Constitution.  What a joke.  A bunch of terrorists, I tell ya. 

Just shut up and obey. 

Obediently give the gubmint their cut of ALL your earnings and spendings or spend some time learning not to drop the soap in a crony prison facility.  Deal?

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:02 | 4622861 McMolotov
McMolotov's picture

Lysander Spooner: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:21 | 4622955 pods
pods's picture

Fucking A love that quote.

Hated it when I first read it, but then I read more of Spooner.

You will get downvotes, as the Con is still untouchable for debate, but you will not find anyone put up a valid argument as to why that quote is inaccurate.  Trust me, I tried.


Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:13 | 4623139 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

It is inaccurate because it places the blame for Clusterfuck Nation on the Constitution.

Spooner was a malcontent.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 21:30 | 4623580 pods
pods's picture

It does no such thing. It merely shows that either the constitution permitted the government we had (in the 1860s), or did not prevent it.

The Constitution is the framework, or the SOPs, that the Federal government operates under.  

If at work you had SOPs that failed to address a situation that they were responsible for, you absolutely would have to realize that either by omission, or by permission, it was the fault of the controlling procedures.

Spooner was a malcontent, but he was articulate, and put argument over title.

We could use more Spooners alive today.

He challenged the monopoly of the Post Office, slavery, defended the Southern State's right of secession, and was an adamant proponent of jury nullification. 

And his works were cited in a couple of recent supreme court cases:

"Spooner's The Unconstitutionality of Slavery was cited in the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the federal district's ban on handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, quotes Spooner as saying the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery.[38] It was also cited by Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago the following year"



Fri, 04/04/2014 - 06:39 | 4624180 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

I hate to add pop culture to serious historical debate, but I'll do it anyway. Forgive me.

A corollary to the Spooner quote comes from Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men: "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what good was the rule?"

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 08:16 | 4624293 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Always be wary of articulate malcontents. Telling me his works are cited (in a rather bizarre constitutional circular argument it would appear) by the Supreme court, in today's context, is like using as a source.

There is no document, no SOP as you cast it, that will counteract the malignant dark heart of man, not even Scripture.

No, we don't need more silk-tongued malcontents casting doubt and aspersion, we need men of conscience capable of comprehending that the Constitution is a framework and all that that implies. We have all failed to maintain the integrity of that framework and our society is collapsing all around us.

No, the Constitution is no more at fault for this fucking mess than the Ten Commandments are for anyone burning in Hell. Like Soylent Green, it's People.

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 09:16 | 4624480 pods
pods's picture

Okay Remus, this is twice you have used attack the messenger for each of my arguments.

There is no fault.

It is merely the recognition that the framework that the general government operated under (Constitution) was unable to keep that general government from doing certain things.  And those things, which Spooner correctly viewed as an assault on liberty, are reasons why the framework was unsuitable for the government to protect liberty.

The Ten Commandments were rules for men, the Constitution is rules for the government.

You go looking for "men of conscience", I will work on removing the power acquired by this government.


Fri, 04/04/2014 - 13:19 | 4625420 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture


Okay Remus, this is twice you have used attack the messenger for each of my arguments.

And provided counter-points. So cut the "attack the messenger" diversion.

It is merely the recognition that the framework that the general government operated under (Constitution) was unable to keep that general government from doing certain things.

No, it is blaming the constitution for the lack of restraint of men.

The Ten Commandments were rules for men, the Constitution is rules for the government.

And governments are made up of men.

I suspect we agree on many points regarding liberty. We disagree on Spooners perspective.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:00 | 4623090 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

If you want to prove the worth of a constitution, you need merely point to that of the USSR, vis a vis the history of the USSR. QED.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:47 | 4622773 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

This guy is ignorant of the actual history of the US Constitution and Article 5, which provides for the states to amend the Constitution.  The convention would deal with specific proposals approved by the state legislatures, and any amendments coming out of this would still need three-quarters of the states to ratify.  Many people think the original Constitutional Convention was a runaway that overturned the Articles of Confederation ... the delegates were in Philly to do the bidding of their state legislatures, who knew the Articles were just not cutting it, and 9 of the original 13 states still needed to ratify the new Constitution to put it into effect, so it was hardly a runaway process. 

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:55 | 4622804 FL_Conservative
FL_Conservative's picture

Thanks for saving me the time and effort to explain it to uninformed writers.  Correcting misconceptions gets OLD really fast.


Tylers.....PLEASE amend this article with the correct understanding of Article 5.  It's bad enough when libs and neocons "spread the truth" by disbursing their lies over and over again.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:08 | 4622871 SgtSchultz
SgtSchultz's picture

Article V

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.

I believe that Armstrong has it wrong.  I believe that any such call from the states will deal with specific proposed amendments, not starting from scratch.


Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:51 | 4623057 atomicwasted
atomicwasted's picture

Nothing prevents a "proposed amendment" from voiding the existing document, or placing an expiration date on it.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:09 | 4623123 FL_Conservative
FL_Conservative's picture

Yes, there is.  You'd have to get 38 states to ratify ANY proposal from the convention.  Problem solved.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:56 | 4623147 Mr. Ed
Mr. Ed's picture

"the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..."


And, it just so happens that HJR-16 (to repeal the 16th Amendment - making any tax on income unconstitutional) will, at about that time, be proposed and all ready to go since it attaches to HR-25 (the FairTax), a bill that I believe will pass much sooner than anyone imagines at this time.

How convenient!

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:32 | 4623200 valley chick
valley chick's picture

Maybe I am wrong but have looked at it as a backup parachute that was seen by our founders...knowing the potential of the federal government.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:01 | 4622855 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Not cutting it = Not enough centralized power = Not enough power over the plebs

There's a world of difference between a confederation of equal states and the creation of a centralized government OVER them.

Of course, your logic holds true for the UN as well.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:10 | 4622902 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

Look at the bright side ... we got decades of world domination out of the deal.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:27 | 4622981 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture


Shit, I can't even get "my" dogs to obey.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:01 | 4622859 Pig Circus
Pig Circus's picture

"This guy is ignorant of the actual history of the US Constitution and Article 5"

You're correct this guy doesn't know what he is talking about. It can't be a run away convention because of the reasons you stated.

Mark Levin got this whole ball rolling with his book last year called "The Liberty Admendments". I'll admit that while his book was uplifting I had doubt much would come of it yet here we are less then a year later and the ball is more then rolling.

Those interested in taking away the illegal strangelhold the Fed Gov has on this nation can follow all the action here:

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:44 | 4623246 Blano
Blano's picture

The COS is a nice idea, but ultimately unworkable IMHO.

Even if it works smoothly, good luck getting 38 states to ratify anymore.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:24 | 4622970 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

I don't think it is even known whether the "application" of each legislature must have a specific proposal.  There is simply exactly NOTHING known about this process.  There will be a million law suits.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:57 | 4623076 atomicwasted
atomicwasted's picture

No one will have any standing to bring them.  Case dismissed.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:46 | 4623247 Drifter
Drifter's picture

Re standing, a con-con might be where it's revealed that states have been conquered territories of the federal govt since the civil war and have no standing to make changes to the constitution.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:41 | 4623234 Blano
Blano's picture

So in other words, nothing is going to happen.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:55 | 4623282 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

That isn't how it reads at all.  Where is it written that all 34 states have to call for the same amendment?  What would be the point of that?  Why not just call it an amendment at that stage since there is such a consensus.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:48 | 4622779 Sofa King
Sofa King's picture

Based on some of the finely crafted legislation I've seen introduced the past few years. I tremble at the thought of these donkey-dicks doing anything to the Constitution. The miles of interpretations lining the walls of law libraries are bad enough.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:31 | 4622983 Tom of the Missouri
Tom of the Missouri's picture

Article 5 was added to the constitution by James Madison and others to provide a framework to rein in a runaway federal government which they feared would happen and has happened.    Most states these days are "red" meaning conservative limited govt. leaning and their legislatures who will appoint the delegates reflect that even more so.   The fact that blue states have more population will not give them an advantage at an Article 5 convention and they will be in the minority.    The big govt. loving federal government, congress, the president, the courts or the burearcracy have no say whatsoever  about what happens in an Article 5 convention.  They can object and protest all they want and it will still happen.   It is soley and affar of the states, who after all were the entities that granted the original power to the federal government, thus they have the power to take it back, change it  or clarify it under he constitution.   The method of taking the power back is to change the constitution.   Each state legislature will appoint delegates with limited presecrptions of what they are tasked to do.    The idea that a convention like this can get out of control by passing radical left liberty stealing amendements is ludicrous and totally wrong.   The fact that 3/5ths of the mostly converstative states of America would do this is extremely unlikely.  It matters not one whit what the leftie legislatures of California and Ney York think or want because their ideas which they have ruined their own states will not see the light of day in an Article 5 convention.  Not sure of Mr. Armstron's political leanings but if he is afraid of a Article 5 convention in the age of runaway big government he must be a leftie himself. Hopefuly since he writes a ZH he is just masively misinformed on this one subject. 

Everyone of course should consult the expert on this Mark Levin and his book about it The Liberty Amendments.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:25 | 4623172 wintermute
wintermute's picture

Tom, excellent analysis!

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:29 | 4623189 Isotope
Isotope's picture

The question is, how will the states be represented at the convention? Will it be proportional representation, like the House of Representatives? You can bet your ass that California and New York will demand that. And I'll be damned if I'll put up with the wall of garbage that those idiots will ram through. You can wager your last dollar that the first item on the agenda will be to gut the 2nd Amendment. I already feel dirty just being in the same nation with those cunts.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:58 | 4623297 donsluck
donsluck's picture

Tom, winter..., and Isotope are all espousing anti-democratic propositions here, with their fuck the most populated states agenda.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 21:12 | 4623539 DirkDiggler11
DirkDiggler11's picture

Hey Don Suck-A-Cock:
I hope your govt check for trolling and propaganda is late this month and you have to eat out of a fucking dumpster this weekend you transparent ass piece of SHIT !!!

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 23:24 | 4623816 Isotope
Isotope's picture

The problem, which has been pointed out by smarter people than me, is that democracy does not scale well. It begins to break down at very least at the state level. And at the national level? Forget it. So yes, I am being "anti-democratic." Because at that level, it doesn't really exist.

Also, not everyone is a cunt. But the politicians and their enablers? Large cunts.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 21:17 | 4623344 August
August's picture

.... California and New York... I already feel dirty just being in the same nation with those cunts.

To borrow a sentiment from Lysander Spooner. I am not personally bound by the existing Constitution, and I sure as hell will not be bound by any new structure that gets the explicit endoresment of delegations from IL, NY, CA etc.

The high likelihood that there could be no new constitution satisfactory to all of the existing states merely substantiates that the current constellation of states has outlived its usefulness.  Usefulness, at least, as defined by the interests of most residents, as opposed to usefulness to the (trans)national elite.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 20:59 | 4623504 W.M. Worry
W.M. Worry's picture

Bullshit. Big Government = Big Military/Security State. The Red States love that shit.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:48 | 4622780 john39
john39's picture

just another step down the road to their glorious new world order...  while making the serfs believe the opposite is happening.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:49 | 4622788 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

They'll get rid of birth citizenship. You'll have to have a solid credit report and be a landholder to have citizenship.

No sarc tag, fuckers. Just deal with it.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:56 | 4622834 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Oh you will have citizenship all right.  Just like you do now.  Its just another word for slave.  We are all slaves, right here, right now in one way, shape, or form to Uncle Sam.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:17 | 4623151 Thin_Ice
Thin_Ice's picture

Hell yeah, term limits should be # 1 on the list!

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 21:39 | 4623602 Leraconteur
Leraconteur's picture

That does not matter - the BoR guarantee Rights, they do not bestow.

The BoR was a list informing the King of what Rights people already had.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:37 | 4622725 Soul Glow
Soul Glow's picture

If a convention is called I imagine it would take decades for Congress to get anything done.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:49 | 4622791 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

They can't even get a website off the ground in 3 years.  I expect a constitutional convention would take about 30, and it wouldn't work when they got there.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:01 | 4622854 negative rates
negative rates's picture

Nope, it will be 90 days and have DC running scared to death.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 20:16 | 4623352 August
August's picture

The District will be relocated to western Nebraska.  It sure couldn't hurt.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:40 | 4623017 Tom of the Missouri
Tom of the Missouri's picture

Excuse me Soul Glow, but congress has nothing to do with it.   Read Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments and get a clue.   I look forward to your future support of an article 5 convention. The people trying to scare you are either greatly misinformed or the one's you should fear.   If this gets some real momentum you will be hearing soon about how bad it is from the three stooges Barack, Nancy and Harry.  Don't fall for the propoganda.  It is really bad for them.    You could inlcude the lefty supremes, too.  Levin proposes term limits for them

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:01 | 4623092 atomicwasted
atomicwasted's picture

Who the fuck is Mark Levin and why should I give even half a crap what he has to say?  Whoever the hell he is, he's no Thomas Jefferson.  Anyone who proposes term limits for Supreme Court justices is a political tool who has no knowledge of history or the reasons why SCOTUS are judges for life.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 21:08 | 4623532 W.M. Worry
W.M. Worry's picture

He's a Jew and a neo-con, of course.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:28 | 4623186 spinone
spinone's picture

What do you mean by real momentum.  the 34th state has called for a convention.  The deed is done.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:59 | 4623085 Groundhog Day
Groundhog Day's picture

we honor the rise against the capital by getting 2 tributes between the ages of 12 and 18 from all 50 states to fight to the death

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 20:20 | 4623360 AreaMan
AreaMan's picture

I also propose the "Throw all Moozlems out of the country" amendment.

Downvote me libs. Get some.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:33 | 4622708 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

If it does happen, add an amendment stating the right to succeed from the Union is the right of any state.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:41 | 4622746 yrad
yrad's picture

Texas is one step ahead of you! God Bless Texas!

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:47 | 4622772 Blues Traveler
Blues Traveler's picture

Indeed, but it will not happen under Perry bc he is corporate bafoon.  Too bad TX doesnt have Bobby Jindal as gov.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:58 | 4622843 yrad
yrad's picture

Perry is on his way out. He sucked the political teet long enough. Who we get next wont be much better. I always thought Ron Paul shouldn't have wasted his ideas on a brain dead nation and should have focused on Texas as a model for what could be.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 20:24 | 4623381 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Perry's a bafoon who probably hunts baffalos.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:55 | 4623279 donsluck
donsluck's picture

I've been to Texas several times. It truly NEEDS God's blessing.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:48 | 4622778 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

Then there is no Union.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:49 | 4622790 Omegaman2211
Omegaman2211's picture


Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:54 | 4622817 McMolotov
McMolotov's picture

There is no spoon.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:31 | 4623195 Jendrzejczyk
Jendrzejczyk's picture

Then how can you eat the soup?

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 21:51 | 4623640 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

No soup for you!

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:43 | 4623034 TN Jed
TN Jed's picture

Not sure if you meant "secede" or playing on the concept of succeeding in spite of Fed.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:39 | 4622730 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Well, this could add some legitimacy to the government. Say if they make it clear that no serf has a right to any privacy whatsoever and just delete the 4th amendment. Changes like this would at least make the government more consistent. Especially, if they cut out "We the People" and replace that with "We the Masters" and replace references to the little people with "the serfs" or "the chattel".

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:40 | 4622741 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

God help us if Obama gets in the middle of this.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:51 | 4622799 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Still fundraising.  In fact, he was at one again last night, hours after the latest Ft. Hood shootings.

You think he would stay away?

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:06 | 4622883 CH1
CH1's picture

Why should he give a shit? Everyone keeps obeying just the same.

Obedience is slavery.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:47 | 4623047 Tom of the Missouri
Tom of the Missouri's picture

Obama has nothing to do with it!   He will likely though scream like a pig being weaned from its mother's teat.   The whole idea of an Article 5 convention if for the anti-Obama red states, which are more numerous than blue ones, to circumvent the entire federal goverhment and reign it back in to where it was when the states granted them their original power.   He who gives can take away under our Consitution in Article 5. .  Please read the amendment and Mark Levin before commenting further.  You and others here are embarrassing yourselves. 

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:04 | 4623112 atomicwasted
atomicwasted's picture

You are embarrassing yourself by constantly flogging some book rather than engaging the discussion.  Can you think for yourself, or just continue to name a book you read once?

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:41 | 4622751 AreaMan
AreaMan's picture

Let the CIA infiltration of state government reps begin .... err resume... errr

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:04 | 4622869 Van Halen
Van Halen's picture

Constitutional convention with TPTB currently in place...


Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:06 | 4622880 Atrica
Atrica's picture

It has something to do with this World Bank wistleblower:

So it could be for the good (I hope so)...

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:16 | 4622898 Pig Circus
Pig Circus's picture

I understand the skepticism I hate the Government almost as much as I hate the people running it but this idea is legit.

Here are Levin's 10 proposed Admendments. The list can be added or subtrated one but each admendment would need three fifths of the states voters approval:

1)      Term Limits: He proposes limiting service in both the House and Senate to 12 years.  Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit.  But the past 100 year has proven that to be false.  As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power.  Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.

2)      Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.

3)      Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country.  In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

4)      Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling.  He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.

5)      Limiting bureaucracy:  He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.

6)      Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause.  The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.

7)      Limiting Federal power to take private property

8)      Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created.  However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process.  If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.

9)      State Authority to Override Congress:  A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures.  The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.

10)  Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.

Taken as a whole, there is no doubt that these amendments would restore our Republican form of government.  Every proposal is backed up by scholarly analysis of the Framers’ view on the proposal, an overview of what has changed since the founding, and the rationale for why the proposal is necessary.  You should read the entire book.  As someone who is busy reading all the current news every day, this is the only political book I made time to read all year.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:19 | 4622942 yrad
yrad's picture

Levin plagerized Ron Paul's ideas and then personally bashed him in the same breath. He bends in whatever direction the wind is blowing.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:43 | 4623036 NemoDeNovo
NemoDeNovo's picture

+1000 - Not to mention Levin is against Gun Rights for all [meaning felons], and against Cannabis legalization or decrimininalzation in any form.  Gotta love the old guard that 'talks' about freedom[s] and opression by the dems - lulz


Besides this shit ain't going nowhere IMO, just more hot air

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:02 | 4623099 Greenskeeper_Carl
Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

Yep. Exactly. This guy is nothing but an opportunist. Preach freedom all day, then still want to legislate his version of morality onto everyone. Fuck mark levin. It's that levin/Palin mainstream republican BS trying, trying to fool people they are actually different than the so called old guard GOP. Same exact shit. The ONLY reason any of these people care about any of this executive over read is because it's a democrat doing it. Where were these frauds a few years ago when it was the exact same shit but with bush in office?

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 00:51 | 4623935 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

I dropped several 'conservative' friends after finally being fed up with their hypocritical b.s.

They talked a good game about 'the Constitution' and rights - - - - but were quite fine with legislating the morality of others and going off to war whenever the flags started waving. And the stuff that O. does now (which deserves being howled over)  was quite o.k. with them when bushie did it.

They didnt really care about the Constitution - - - just the R vs D crap.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 23:39 | 4623837 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

He's wrong on (3) also. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court arrogated to itself the role of judging the constitutionality of the law. There is not a single word in the constitution hat supports that. Whether a law is constitutional or not is strictly for juries to decide.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 23:40 | 4623839 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

He's wrong on (3) also. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court arrogated to itself the role of judging the constitutionality of the law. There is not a single word in the constitution that supports that. Whether a law is constitutional or not is strictly for juries to decide.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:38 | 4623012 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

Not a fucking peep about the Fed Res.


Thu, 04/03/2014 - 18:50 | 4623054 Slave
Slave's picture

Levin is a deep cover mouthpiece for the state. They will use this convention to enslave you, under the guise of giving you more freedom. You're playing right into their hand. The constitution does not need to be changed, it needs to be followed. What good are these changes when it is barely followed already?

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:05 | 4623113 Greenskeeper_Carl
Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

Disagree there. Change 2nd amendment to read simply "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and repeal the 16th and 17th. Pretty much repeal any law or change made in 1913.

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 23:42 | 4623845 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

The 14th amendment is a train wreck, needs to be repealed and rewritten. Also, lets repeal the 19th amendment while we are at it. Nothing good came from that one.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!