The Effort to Dismantle
By Jackie Patru
(revised and updated January, 2001)
Under article V of the
Constitution, our founding fathers established
two methods for future generations to add amendments to the
1: Two-thirds of both houses of Congress can propose an amendment,
and then three-fourths of the states ratify it... or not.
2: Two-thirds (34) of the states call for a federal constitutional
convention, and then three-fourths of the states ratify whatever
amendments are proposed by the convention.
ratification by states does not specify state legislatures
insist there's nothing to fear from a con-con maintain that even if it were
to get out of control it would take three-fourths of the states to ratify
it. They ask, "Would 38 states ratify a bad amendment?" At first glance,
it seems unlikely... but three facts are never mentioned by con-con advocates,
and these are crucially important points:
1) The convention could abolish or
alter the rules of ratification as was done in 1787.
2) Article V authorizes
Congress to decide on the mode of ratification: either by State
Legislatures or by special State Ratifying Conventions. In 1933 the
21st Amendment – lifting the prohibition on alcohol –
was ratified in special state conventions, thus circumventing the legislatures
of the states.
[That incident bares further research.
It appears that the BATF was created as a result of the implementing legislation
for Amendment 21. Maybe prohibition was instituted to create the
‘crime’ of distilling, distributing, and consuming alcohol to justify
the need for the "revenuers" and the ensuing crime bills. Maybe Title 27,
the Code of Federal Regulations used by the IRS is part of all that, since
the IRS is under Title 26 and there is no CFR for Title 26. Whatever the
case, the proponents of the 21st Amendment, circumvented the States
in favor of ratifying conventions to get the amendment ratified because they
knew they wouldn’t get ratification by the state legislatures.]
3) Advocates of a convention deceptively
offer false assurances that a convention can be limited to a single subject.
Some state legislators feel safe with their state's call for a con-con because
they have added to it a "null and void" clause if the convention not be limited
to the specific purpose of proposing an amendment to balance the budget.
V authorizes the states only to apply for a convention. Once underway, the
convention makes its own rules and could reject any or all restrictions on
its activity and assert its supreme power by virtue of its direct authority
from the Constitution.
Power of the Delegates to a Con-Conhas been
acknowledged several times by various State Supreme Courts; and a letter
from former U.S.
Chief Justice, Warren Burger confirms the danger.
amendments to our Constitution originated in Congress and were then ratified
by the states. The second method, by federal convention, has never been used
because it places too much power in the hands of few. The first and only
convention was held in 1787, during which our Constitution was framed.
the founders had convinced the people a Conference of States should be held
for the purpose of "making some changes" in the Articles of Confederation.
The delegates to the Conference in Philadelphia were under strict instructions
from their respective states and the Congress to meet ‘for the sole
and express purpose’ of revising the Articles of Confederation. As we
know, they did much more than that. They threw out the Articles of Confederation
and drafted a new constitution.
The 55 men
present at that conference locked the doors – and even nailed the windows
shut – to the public and the press, and proceeded to draft an entirely
new document which replaced the Articles of Confederation. Many believe that
what our founders did was providential; however, it hardly seems wise to
trust the special interests of today with powers that could be used "lawfully"
to re-write or worse... replace our Constitution.
Conference of States, the delegates created a Committee of the Whole, passed
a resolution repealing the Articles of Confederation and continued on with
what became known as the first and only Constitutional Convention. Can you
imagine hearing, "The Constitution for the United States of America is hereby
dissolved."? It happened that way in the 1787 Convention. . . it could happen
Some Modern History
In 1964 the Ford Foundation
funded and orchestrated – via the CSDI (Center for the Study of
Democratic Institutions – the drafting of a new constitution for America.
This model constitution, drawing upon the efforts of more than 100 people,
took ten years to write. The 40th draft was published in a book
titled The Emerging Constitution, by
G. Tugwell (Harper & Row, 1974). The project cost $2.5
million per year and produced the
Constitution for the Newstates of
you would be inclined to dismiss the relevance of the proposed new constitution,
bear in mind that it is the product of a globalist minded, tax-exempt think-tank
which took ten years, $25,000,000, and the collaboration of over one-hundred
"It would be folly to believe
this investment is intended to be merely an exercise in political theory.
The frightening reality is, the planners are serious in their efforts to
impose a new constitution upon the people of America as we enter the 21st
Century." – Col. Arch Roberts,
Committee to Restore
the Constitution (This link opens in a new browser window).
completion of the proposed Newstates Constitution (1974), Nelson Rockefeller,
then president of the U.S. Senate, engineered the introduction of HCR 28
calling for an unlimited Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) in 1976. Public
opposition defeated this effort so the convention backers then went to the
states promoting a "limited convention" for the ostensible purpose of adding
a balanced budget amendment.
the advocates of a Con-Con convinced 32 of the required 34 states to pass
resolutions calling for a convention. The last state to apply was Missouri
in 1983 and since then legislators in three states (Alabama, Florida and
Louisiana), having realized the dangers of this action rescinded their call.
House of Representatives "purged" its resolution. However, since both chambers
passed the resolution, it is questionable whether the one-chamber
purge would be accepted as a rescission. Conversely, it has been argued that
because the resolution was actually purged from the records – as though
it never passed – it would negate the initial resolution which must
pass in both chambers to be complete.
We should not consider
Nevada’s purge, nor the rescissions of Alabama, Florida and Louisiana
as a safety
to Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a convention
when 2/3rds of the states apply. That magic number is 34 states. Since three
states have formally withdrawn (rescinded) their calls, that would seemingly
leave us 5 states away from having a Con-Con. However, we have been informed
that the advocates of the convention are waiting to capture not five, but
only two more. It is said that if they get two more states to pass
resolutions for a Con-Con, they plan to challenge the rescissions of the
three states and throw them into the courts while going ahead with a convention.
the blatant corruption in courts at all levels today, it would be folly to
rest on our laurels and feel safe that the courts would uphold those rescissions.
For that reason, it should be considered at this time that if only two
states pass resolutions calling for a con-con for the purpose of adding
the balanced budget amendment, Congress would be required by the Constitution
to open a Convention.
there were sporadic efforts by various states to pass the resolutions, each
of which failed. In 1993 the push was on. Twelve States simultaneously introduced
Con-Con resolutions. When that effort was unsuccessful, the forces
promoting the Con-Con went back to the planning board.
Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution was being introduced
in many states in 1994, those desiring the ultimate elimination of the
states spent the year laying the foundation for an historical repeat
of 1787... a Constitutional Convention.
of States was scheduled to take place in "historic" Philadelphia, October
22nd through 25th, 1995 – coincidentally falling
on the October 24th, Fifty-year Anniversary of the UN. So sure
of success were the powers behind the effort , a Canadian newspaper in 1995
(according to Allen Watt) informed its readers that British Prime Minister,
Margaret Thatcher, would be out of the country in October, attending an
"important convention" in Philadelphia. We discovered later that Margaret
Thatcher’s secretary was an advisor to the COS.
Although the COS was billed as a plan by Governors
Michael Leavitt of Utah and Ben Nelson of Kansas, it became clear from a
1987 ACIR-CSG paper that in reality the Governors were merely delivery boys
for the scheme led by the Rockefeller founded Council of State Governments.
In addition to Leavitt’s
of 5-17-94: Subject: Conference of
States, with its veiled intentions,
our first piece of real evidence that the COS was, in fact, planning a Con-Con,
appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune 5-25-94, of which unfortunately we did
not have knowledge until February, ‘95 after twelve states had passed
the resolution. According to the Tribune article, Leavitt had taken
"... his plan for an informal
states’ conference and a possible constitutional convention to the Western
States Summit in Phoenix."
of the outrage of many Summit attendees of his stated goal for a constitutional
convention, Leavitt and company pulled in their horns and proceeded more
carefully, denying plans of a con-con clear to the bitter-sweet end. Bitter
for the planners, that is; sweet for those of us who worked ‘round the
clock for months, praying fervently for divine guidance in our efforts to
preserve the Constitution. Our prayers were granted, just as Jesus promised,
"ask and it shall be given you". In reality, the outcome was sweet for
all Americans, most of whom had no clue the battle for their freedom
Conservatives More Dangerous Than
the organizations and leaders who purport to be ‘conservative’
are the strongest proponents of a Constitutional Convention.
Foremost among them are the *American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC), *National Taxpayers' Union (NTU), *Republican National
Committee (RNC) and most notably the *Committee on the Constitutional System
(CCS), chaired by Senator Nancy Kassebaum from Kansas, former Secretary of
the Treasury, C. Douglas Dillon, and former Counsel to the President, Lloyd
N. Cutler. Lloyd N. Cutler was Ross Perot’s
advisor; Jimmy Carter’s White House Counsel; and reared his ugly head
for a brief period during one of Clinton’s scandals.
Perot appeared on the scene in 1992, he publicly called for a Constitutional
Convention. We have transcripts of Perot's separate guest appearances with
Barbara Walters, Phil Donahue and Larry King during which he stated emphatically
that we need a Parliamentary Government (for which Paul Weyrich pines) and
bragged that "his people" could get the remaining states needed for a
Constitutional Convention call, "in their sleep". When Perot supporters –
members of United We Stand America – discovered their ‘hero’
was in actuality setting them up to take a fall, UWAS as an organization
began to disintegrate.
Jesuit-trained Paul Weyrich, founder of ALEC, and
apparently the supreme commander at the Council for National Policy meetings,
has been a major behind-the-scenes player. ALEC’s hired hand –
lawyer John Armor – was the foremost lobbyist to state legislators in
the decades-long effort to win the required number of state calls via the
"balanced budget amendment" resolution. Weyrich stated in a Washington Post
article he authored, titled
Conservative’s Lament, that
"... some type of shadow government...
" because "Unlike European parliamentary democracies, we have no ‘shadow
cabinet’, no group of experts who are groomed by their party for decades
before they take high office...".
to realize that, even though the liberals are blamed for the downfall of
America, the phony conservative leaders have held the door open for them
to do so. We urgently appeal to true conservative state legislators and Americans
in all political parties to open their eyes to the fact that the Democrat
and Republican parties are a single
What Would America Look Like
for the Newstates of America?
in the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America, the fifty united
sovereign States will be segmented into ten regions. As we know, that step
has already been completed by Nixon’s executive order, although it could
simply be undone by state legislative action. States would be eliminated
as will elected representation by and for the people, replaced by over-seers
in the 10 regions with appointed bureaucrats to keep their subjects in line.
This plan, promulgated by the International elite, would more efficiently
and effectively control the 280 million people in America under an intended
World Government, the seat of which would be the United Nations.
of Rights would be replaced by "privileges" given to us by the world government
and taken away at its whim. For example...
Article 1-A Sec.1 - "Freedom of
expression shall not be abridged except in declared emergency". A perpetual
state of emergency could be declared which would prevent anyone from writing
the material you are now reading. In fact, we could face imprisonment for
the mere reading of this type information.
Article 1A Sec.8 - "The practice
of religion shall be privileged".
Article 1B Sec. 8 - "Bearing of arms
shall be confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed
Article VIII states that the judge
decides if there is to be a jury. It is very similar to the "constitutions"
under which people in Russia and other Communist countries live. Of course,
we are all to believe that Communism is dead and the UN is "democratizing"
all the nations of the world.
Here are a few other items:
Tugwell, the lead author of the
Constitution said that private ownership of farms had not proved good
Depression – Senator
Kassebaum’s CCS says they want to wait until the U.S. is in a 1929 type
depression to call a convention, because only then would the public accept
the radical changes they want.
Schools – Article 1-A Sec. 11
says that free education would only be for those who pass appropriate
for those who believe our Constitution is already dead, and for those of
you who claim the Constitution was a scam perpetrated by the Brotherhood
– the very fact that the International Elite have been trying for decades
to open it up for their proposed changes, should be a clue that we have something
they want. How about the Bill of Rights? The Second Article of Amendment?
The Ninth and Tenth Articles of Amendment? Article V, which cannot be touched,
and which declares that "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived
of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
know that ours is the only Constitution in the world which refers to the
Citizens as the People? Other nations’ Constitutions refer to the people
as "subjects". We have papers that lay out the NAFTA Implementation Schedule,
which shows that by 2005 the U.S. and Canada are to be merged. Allen Watt,
a Canadian and frequent guest on the Sweet Liberty broadcast recently told
us about a Canadian TV program he saw. A group of professors discussing a
recent summit they had attended, each and all came to the conclusion that
it could never happen unless they could somehow repeal our 2nd
James M. Burns, on page 160 of Reforming
American Government stated:
"Let us face reality. The framers have simply been too shrewd for us. They
have outwitted us. They designed separated institutions that cannot be unified
by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to ‘turn
the founders upside down – to put together what they put asunder –
we must directly confront the Constitutional structure they
before the Constitution was ratified and while a few state officials were
still uneasy about certain parts of it, there began a movement to reopen
the convention. JAMES MADISON, the prime motivator of the first convention,
was horrified by the mere suggestion of reconvening. In a letter to George
Turberville, he said:
"Under these circumstances it seems
scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted
in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties
and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every
propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second".
So should we all tremble
for the result of a second.
May our Heavenly Father / Creator
Continue to Guide and Bless Our Work
(remember... we must ASK)