Who was at the constitutional convention Videos

+Patrick Graham If there are 2/3rds of the states, there would be a convention. It is said that the original purpose of Article V was to give States the power to circumvent a corrupt Congress. However, without knowing who the delegates would be and the threat of a runaway convention having a Constitutional Convention would be too dangerous at this time.

You're welcome. What they can not understand is the 1968 law violates the 2nd Amendment They can not rap their head around the truth. They like most American's have been brainwashed into the idea that the 2nd Amendment is for a select few. Not all inclusive. 

+Harry that is why we need to educate others so we can vote in those that follow the constitution. Thank you for sharing your story with us!

JBS leaders believed this route to ratification would scare Congress into adopting the Liberty Amendment and then sending it to the states for ratification. No one connected to the amendment wanted a Con-Con, believing always that it posed a threat to the entire Constitution. If you follow what Robert Welch was actually trying to do you would understand that these were totally different situations. The Constitution today is in so much danger of being rewritten, a Con-Con could cause a total rewrite and if you don't trust the government now why would you give them more power to create the rules that they want? 

JBS doublespeak? Why would Welch urge a state legislature to propose a constitutional amendment?  It is JBS that is misrepresenting itself in the article you link to.  And it is so obvious as to be laff-out-loud.  JBS should return to it's roots and kick the current leadership out.  The 17th amendment has removed the primary power states had in stopping democratic socialism. COS is all states have left.  And the 2/3 majority of states are conservative.  Conservatives would rule for the proposing of amendments. Ratifying is where we should be on several proposed amendments but because of corrupt conservatives like JBS we are allowing the Feds to nullify all state power. Now, with Scalia dead, we the people are represented as gun happy religious fools. The Feds will now move to overthrow all the individual liberty our Constitution enshrines. 

+ToIsleOfView How is it our last hope for saving our Constitution with a chance of a runaway convention? Our government doesn't follow the one we have now so what makes you think they will once a COS takes place?

+ToIsleOfView We have never supported a COS. If you are referring to The Liberty Amendment I suggest you to read this for an explanation: //insidejbs.org/2015/04/17/misrepresenting-the-john-birch-society/

+1965ace, to some degree, that is true. But as Madison warned, the Article V convention "would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude" in making changes to the Constitution. Let's not take this from bad to worse. The history lesson isn't just "nice". It is vital that we learn from this history. As George Santayana warned, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

+rinohunter Nice history lesson . I think we already have an ongoing constitutional convention in the activist (less than) supreme court .....

Don't count on the 38 states ratification requirement. In 1787, Rhode Island had the same attitude. They wrote a letter to the constitutional convention, saying whatever they come up with will still require the consent of ALL 13 STATE LEGISLATURES (including Rhode Island). This was the existing constitutional requirement for any changes to their current constitution (Article XIII, Articles of Confederation).Everyone knew RI would be a holdout, and block the ratification process. So the convention CHANGED THE RATIFICATION RULES. Instead of requiring all 13 state legislatures, they took it away from legislatures, and called on special ratification conventions in each state. And they only required 9 states, rather than all 13.The 9th state ratified by the end of June, 1788, and in September of that year, Congress declared the constitution was officially adopted. Yet, RI was still standing their ground, insisting it would require their consent. It wasn't until the end of May, 1790, that they finally backed down and ratified, recognizing the rest of the country was moving on without them. This sets a striking precedent. Don't count on 38 states being required to ratify whatever the modern convention produces. They can cite the 1787 precedent, and create a new, easier ratification process.

+Mark Winters People want to be left alone but big brother won't stop. The only people not feeling the dismal economy are government workers and multinational corporations with their hooks into the government. It's criminal what they are doing to health care, military service, education, and Social Security, Hell we can't even pray at a high school football game. Article V is the only thing we haven't tried to get them to stop. The Feds will continue to destroy this nation because they no longer work for the people. They work for the multinational corporations. No election is going to change that. Term limits on everybody in the federal system is on the table. Limits on wages, on nomination power, wages, Lobby contributions, revolving door corporate employment, you name it and it can be limited by the States using Article V in a lawful manner.

+TheJohnBirchSociety this may be the only way to stop a civil war

+TheJohnBirchSociety When you talk about a constitutional convention you are implying that we are calling for a new constitution and that is not so. We are calling for a convention of states to amend the constitution.  I'll admit there is a very slim chance of a run away convention but any amendments that come out of the convention must be approved by 34 states. If 34 states approve of any unconstitutional admendment then the country will be lost and become apart of the World Government were we are headed now.For those who think the Constution is a perfect document and we don't need to change anything, it has been amended 27 times. The Constution is a great document but a lot of the problems come when people try to interrupt it to benifit themselves rather than we the people. The 16th and17th admendments need to be deleted. We need a balanced budget admendment. We need a term limits admendment for Congress and the Supreme Court because we don't need professional politicans or justices. We need an amendment to force the government to comply with all the laws they pass.

+stauffersc Can you explain how we are being biased? There is a possibility of a runaway convention.

Recently, 2011-2012 legislative session, the Hawaiian House of Representatives passed HCR 114, a bill to apply to Congress for an Article V Constitutional Convention. Hawaii's House called it a "Constitutional Convention." In their application resolution, Hawaii proposed five amendments for consideration. Their first proposed amendment is to either repeal or rewrite the 2nd Amendment. How will that go over? Could a bloodless revolution created in an Article V Convention lead America to a bloody civil war through the products of its deliberations? It is a deliberative convention and delegates thereto may draft amendment proposals according to Robert Natelson, Ph.D. so we have no idea what the delegates of 50 States will draft as proposed Amendments once the convention is convened.

I feel they should Add 3 Amendments. 1 The Constitution should be taken word for word without interpretation. 2 The government should NOT exceed the budget more than growth of the economy. Should the budget exceed the growth, the excess would be deducted from our Governments salaries or wages starting from highest to lowest. 3 No Political Action Committee shall donate money to any Government Official or all involved will be imprisoned for bribery for not less than 10 Years. Losing all ability to practice law in the Continental USA. Our Government Officials wages and salaries are in the TOP 7% of our country.

I've been thinking that the 30 republican governors should be pressured to refuse federal money across the board as a show of unity against the ever burgeoning deficit spending, knowing that everything they receive from Washington is borrowed. This could be a principled stand against debt while at the same time, cutting the strings the federal government has on us and everything we do. 30 governors doing this and shaming the rest for increasing the debt might go a long way to putting the federal government genie back into its bottle and end the call or need for a balanced budget amendment.

No, he is not correct. An Article V Convention for the proposal of amendments would not put the entire Constitution on the line. The states would dictate exactly what the convention was convened for. The problem with using liberals to interpret the Constitution is that it was not meant to be interpreted, but READ. It is in English. And Article V allows for AMENDMENTS to be proposed. This type of convention would not even convene Congress except to ENACT what the states demanded.

Professor Tribe's many unresolved questions are important. Professor Tribe was correct that the entire constitution could be on the line if an Article V Convention were convened. The Article V Convention may offer a bloodless revolution to change our Constitution, or what might be intended to be a bloodless revolution might make such terrible recommendations that it prompts deep divisions in our country.

Mr. levision's arguments about avoiding using the states and adopting a "We the people" approach is self defeating. We have whats called a representative democracy where we elect local and state officials to operate in our best interest, so in essence... our state officials calling a convention is operating in the capacity we have delegated as a public trust.

Mr. Levison doesn't seem to even realize he is debating about a Article V Convention. He keeps talking about Americans talking with eachother as our nation plummets into debt oblivion. If Americans talking about the problem fixes it... quite frankly, he is endorsing the same activity and passivity that has got us in the sad position we are in as a nation.

Mr. Levinson's idea that he doesn't think 3/4th's of the states will ever agree on a specific Constitutional Convention doesn't really matter; what people really need to know is that 80% of Americans want a balanced budget amendment and if this is the case, our representatives (whether at the state or Congressional level) can't continue to ignore this.

Mr. Tribes idea that Washington's, Franklin's, and Madison's don't exist today is rather short-sighted. They exist... the problem is they are not among the "political class" that is currently in the lime-light, or they are viciously attacked by the "establishment" currently clinging to power.

Not trying to be disrespectful. He is obviously an accomplished scholar, but I have to admit I was not impressed with his "scholarship" on this issue.

Nick Dranias is a rather gifted speaker. He changed my mind on a number of nuances surrounding this debate. Thank you Mr. Dranias!

Thank you Barbara Perry for actually taking a scholarly approach to this debate!

should voters have an opportunity to VOTE on a revolution? Check out my website.

Mr. Tribe did his due diligence... I appreciated his practical approach.

+Keith Hughes (HipHughes) no need to respond to people like that, Keith. I am an old man sorta and I love your channel. Literally one of the best channels on all of YouTube. For me it's a second chance to learn because my first go around when I was young, I didn't care or pay attention in school. Now I do. Are u following the current early goings of the 2016 presidential candidates?

+jonbryn4 What an enlightening and intelligent comment. So much in there to chew on. In terms of grammar I am impressed with the "you are" instead of "your" but the lack of using a capital letter in a "full sentence" would detract from your grade. Creativity wise, you really need some work, using a term like "ass" is not that impressive or thoughtful in all honesty. Digging into the intellect of the comment there really isn't anything to comment on, your comment lacks any content to speak of. All in all, for a troll, I'd say a "D". The good news is there really isn't anywhere to go but up. ~HHH

Oh good lord this is one of my first videos, a hostage vid. For the love of all good please visit www.youtube.com/hiphughes and check out some current content. Thanks for the thanks new subscriber.... (hint hint hint)

ok, thanks

Awesome! There is an entire Constitution playlist on the main Page. Just let me know Shen u need any help. -Keith. Sent from my iPhone

I just realized u have many videos about history, so I will probably be visiting some of those too

lol yes it is...especially when I have to study the entire constitution, because the convention was just part of the essay question, plus will have many multiple choice questions as well

I meant past tense, I agree, one Constitutional Convention video is enough for anyone.

+Keith Hughes lol I think I understand it all now, but thanks...

Oh, I wish you watched the new one. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 for Dummies

Plus common core has nothing to do with content, its about skills, which in the end I think limits the creativity of the instructor. Man you pissed me off. Here is five hours of Constitution explanations to make you even dumber. //www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi3U-nPPrbS5d-juhFwo3hTBso0gq2sUZ

Its a review video for beginners you nit wit. I am admin for the badass teachers association, with 35k, who seek to rid ourselves of common core. this basic info is needed to have kids innovate and create. Nice way to judge. I am rarely offended.

Funk off Commie Pig

+David Thompson I think you meant "you're a useful idiot". Sorry that your straw man argument and personal attacks could not make your talking points.

+David DeGerolamoThe History is not something you can make up in your mind Donkey Hole! The History of The United States is Recorded, I gave you sources to help you correct your confusion. But your a useful idiot for The Progressive Machine... If you could see yourself in the eyes of the readers here, you would shut the funk up

+David Thompson A great example of a straw man argument. You lose the Article V convention argument so you transfer this thread to be how I would eliminate the national debt. There is only one way to eliminate the debt. The answer is the same as the original Continental.

+David DeGerolamoWhat is your Answer about the $147 Trillion in DEBT? Don't send me to a web site. Tell me in a paragraph how to legally stop the lawlessness........ This is from your web site.. Anyone who supports an Article V Convention does not understand the Constitutional framework for its delegates and the consequences that can overthrow our government. Look to the last convention that was held for this purpose. The delegates illegally overthrew the existing government (The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union) and wrote a new constitution. That “convention” became known at the Constitutional Convention.I can only imagine the delegates chosen by “Congress” to attend a Constitutional Convention today.David DeGerolamoThis my answer to you!You have your history wrong! Your A Donkey Hole Nutjob.... D. Thompson

+David Thompson I understand your frustration completely. I have an answer but people do not want to acknowledge reality: there is no political solution. Why would we trust the politicians who have traded Liberty for tyranny to get provide a solution? I do what I can on NCRenegade.com.

+David DeGerolamoI have one question for you! What do you do to stop the $147 Trillion the Federal Legistlators have piled up on the Citizens of The United States! That Debt includes Fiscal Operating Debt and Unfunded Liabilities! It is growing at 6 to 10 Trillion a year.. Do you think this Country will survive even 5 more years with this out of control lawlessness. If you do not have an answer get used to eating RAT ON A SPIT....

+David Thompson The prerogative of conventions to establish their own rules does not mean that each convention acts on a blank slate. From page 51 of the above document.As I stated before, people can do their own research.Here is an analysis from a Constitutional attorney: //publiushuldah.wordpress.com/article-v/People who must resort to name calling to validate their point(s) are standing on shifting sand.

You do not know what you are talking about! You must be a JBS or Eagle Forum Dumb Donkey......... Propaganda lives on both sides dummy! I will prove my point... //constitution.i2i.org/files/2014/04/Compendium-2.2.pdf  Read Part I.Sources, “Science Fiction,” and Article V Bibliography

ONLY because the leaders STOPPED FOLLOWING IT!  Usually what happens is they turn from a Constitutional Republic and morphed into a more pure "democratic" run system...and as we know...when people know they can vote for those that give em more free stuff, well that is the death knell for that Republic

Read the Articles of Confederation (especially number 13), and the Declaration of Independence (especially paragraph 2) then get back to me.

+Bradley Rees What part of "when ratified by three fourths of the several States" don't you understand? If Congress wants to change the ratification process, they would have to propose and the states would have to ratify another ratification process. It's right there in Article V, in plain English. If you're using one part of the original Constitution to negate another, there's something definitely wrong with your interpretation.

+Brian Levin I agree 100%.

The text speaks for itself. I do not need to explain it any further, it is self evident.

+Brian Levin Yes, it is. But you and CoS sure try awful hard.

Its pretty hard to "easily refute" the actual text of Article 5 now isn't it.

Here: //lmgtfy.com/?q=Black%27s+Law+Dictionary+Constitutional+ConventionAlso, where in Article V does it "completely bypass" the Feds? Congress calls the convention (and everything that entails, per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17) and Congress also chooses the method of ratification. Stop spreading easily-refuted talking points.Madison gave very explicit instructions on what to do when the Feds overstep their bounds - in The Federalist 44, 45, and 46. (The ONLY Federalist Papers dealing specifically with Fed abuse of powers.) No variant of the word "amend" is present. Not once.