Help support alternative media by visiting our Allies

Selkirk Mountain Real Estate

3 Strong Points Against the Con-Con Con

We don’t have a Constitution problem. We have an adherence problem.

The 3 Strong Points Against the Con-Con Con

3 Strong Points Against the Con-Con Con

by Rich Loudenback

The three most important points to understand about the constant drumbeat by well-paid pitchmen for a ‘Convention of the States’ or any other Article V Convention are:

FIRST: A Very Simple Question

Why should we believe that Congress or citizens would magically follow new laws any more than present laws? Few state legislators seem to realize that our nation’s disastrous budget deficits had accrued out of disregard for constitutional restraints in the first place. Because had government been held only to its constitutionally authorized activities, no budget crisis could have developed. See: ‘The Solution Is the Constitution, Not Article V’

Much can be accomplished by following the Constitution, enforcing laws and by Nullifying unconstitutional laws.

SECOND: A Runaway Convention Cannot be Prevented!

Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Berger issued a stern warning: “Nobody tells a Con-Con what to do. Its powers to propose Amendments are unlimited. In light of this information, does America, do you, really want to risk a convention? Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risk involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subject needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention.”

In his early career, before he became Justice of the Supreme Court, the late Anthony Scalia is often quoted as stating he supported a constitutional convention. However, later in his career with the wisdom from a lot more experience and considering the realities of the day he became opposed to it.

During the question-and-answer session following a speech Scalia gave to the Federalist Society in Morristown, New Jersey, on May 8, 2015, he was asked whether a Constitutional Convention would be in the nation’s interest: “Although COS might have one believe that a constitutional convention is a ‘different creature entirely‘ from an Article V convention or ‘convention of the states,’ as they call it, this is simply not true. A Constitutional Convention is a horrible idea,” Scalia replied. “This is not a good century to write a Constitution.”

THIRD: Ratification Reality

You can count on this! A Constitutional Convention would not risk sending their results out for 38 state legislatures to ratify since Article V’s option (Ratifying Conventions) offers such a failsafe alternative. (Factoid: Utah’s legislature would never have repealed Prohibition. A Ratifying Convention repealed it.) The mindset of the convention will assuredly be that ratifying in state legislatures would be entirely too perilous with endless debate, filibustering, committee assignments, legal challenges etc. into ad nauseam multiplied times 50 hoping to get 38 state legislatures who vote Yay.

No. They would send convention results to hand-selected delegates at Ratifying Conventions who will be like-minded, baggage carrying colleagues who would be chumps in the world of constitutional patriotism. Helpful substantiation for my point is that our last Amendment (Amendment 27) took 202 yrs, 7 months and 12 days to ratify. Most amendments took well over a year to several years to ratify.

Other Points to Ponder

Legislators should strongly question where the funding for all these well healed lobbyists and their very expensive promotional efforts have been coming from to push this with such dogged urgency for years. Just last year millions were spent by them in 19 states where we were fortunate in beating a total of 29 various applications. They currently have 28 states and only need 6 more for a total of 34 for a Constitution Convention call. See short video: Rep. Moon Exposes Fraud by Con-Con Peddlers

Application rescissions never time out, they are intentionally rescinded once states come to their senses. Idaho has had 6 applications in our past going all the way back to 1910. You have to ask yourself why so many times did our states awaken and rescind. I think Americans are smarter than they often are given credit for and have just temporarily given into the spell cast by poker-faced presentations which have been fueled by our being fed up with how poorly our system has performed from not following the Constitution and the hunger to right things with the wish of a quick fix. In other words, the Convention pushers are appealing to an attitude that’s nearly saying ‘We have to do something, even if it’s wrong!’

Nothing is more dangerous to our Republic than the opening of such a convention because it can literally take down our country as we’ve known it almost overnight. There are very clandestine and powerful forces behind it. We have problems today which are being exploited to hasten such a magical fix that can alter or even literally abolish our sacred Constitution.

The money behind it all: The Con-Con con today, in our political climate, is being overseen by unelected, unaccountable powerful global elitist who know what’s best about everything for everybody. They will be directly or indirectly influencing the attendees to be sure the results of such a convention would be fatal to our republic. That is why they are spending all the millions pushing this.

Sure things are a mess, because elected officials have gotten away from what brought us and what we are really about: A nation of limited national government, with the states and the people shouldering most responsibilities themselves. We are not supposed to be socialists and that’s where our majority of legislators have been taking us unintentionally or on purpose. They must ‘Patriot Up,’ do the hard work of reversing much that is present by honoring their oaths to the Constitution and our state Constitutions to save America for their grandchildren because America is rapidly being dissolved by them currently.

In summation, we don’t have a Constitution problem. We have an adherence problem. The ‘fix’ is following law, law enforcement, prosecution and nullification. Nullification is the real serious effort that would surely work with bad legislation affecting our states and our citizens and needs being pursued.

Citizens direct the fix by educating ourselves, informing others, watching Freedom Index voting records for Washington, DC found at and the Idaho Freedom Index for voting records for Idaho found at the and culling the vermin at the polls.


Republished with permission by the Gem State Patriot


Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here:

3 Comments on 3 Strong Points Against the Con-Con Con

  1. You can bet that the Clinton’s, Obama’s and the Bush’s already have a new constitution written and it will not benefit the American people.

  2. “Why should we believe that Congress or citizens would magically follow new laws any more than present laws?”

    Without the power to hold criminals in government to account for their treasonous and lesser seriously evil crimes, there is no law in America. In fact, the opposite is true as the so-called government is in place to extract all the wealth from anyone capable of producing it, and using that stolen loot to steal more loot.

    “But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year’s interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government’s discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt’s benefits. “In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence,” explained Hamilton, “it assumes most of the purposes of money.” Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton’s debt program.

    “To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because “[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law,” such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.”
    Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy 1st Edition
    by William Watkins

    Since 1789 the so-called “Federal” government (it is a fraud to call a National government a Federal government), which is not Federal, it is National – since 1789 – the fraudulent “government” has been in the business of protecting it’s protection racket: plain old extortion when the Mob does it, and it is treason when the gang members get away with calling it the government.

    So…the first Con-Con Con-Job in 1787 was falsely claimed to be for the people and falsely claimed to be an effort to alter the existing Federation of Independent States. The first Con-Con Con-Job was instead a deal made between central banking frauds, warmongers, and slave traders, and their intent was to counterfeit the law, and to counterfeit the counterfeit money needed to fund the counterfeit law. They did not alter the existing grass-roots, organic, federal agreement for mutual defense, they replaced it with a counterfeit.

    The following is even more information applicable to the Con-Con Con-Job of 1787.

    JANUARY 17, 1788.
    Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled before the criminals took over:
    “It must be admitted, that men, from the monarch down to the porter, are constantly aiming at power and importance and this propensity must be as constantly guarded against in the forms of the government. Adequate powers must be delegated to those who govern, and our security must be in limiting, defining, and guarding the exercise of them, so that those given shall not be abused, or made use of for openly or secretly seizing more.”

    Slave Trade Deal of 1789 (U.S. Inc. Constitution):
    “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.”

    The individual shall nevertheless be protected from indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to the counterfeit law of the land. The actual law of the land is the common law with people running independent Grand Juries and people deliberating in Trial Juries.

    So…no we should not believe that magically people (who are the government) will magically follow new laws any more than we follow the law of the land.

    “Why should we believe that Congress or citizens would magically follow new laws any more than present laws?”

    People (so-called citizens) do not follow the law, as we do not form Grand Juries, and we do not form Trial Juries, because if we did then those treasonous criminals in office would know better than to abuse their power, the swamp would never have been filled up by criminals like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, or any who followed their criminal path.

  3. Isn’t the one over riding fact that the COS is a plan to save America from the governmental tyranny that has been taking place since Woodrow Wilson and all the way through Hussein O’s reign?

Comments are closed.