An Article V Convention is Like Pouring Gasoline on An Already Burning Fire (Part One)

Don't forget that congress is inhabited by swamp critters

Article V convention
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

By Diane Kepus:

Diane Kepus

Do you trust your legislators to do the right thing?

“An Article V Convention Is Like Pouring Gasoline on An Already Burning Fire” ~ James Madison’s letter to George Tuberville 11/2/1788

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their    part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. ~ Revelation 21:8

Obama during his presidency continually stated, “he had no greater responsibility than protecting the American people” and he was wrong!

Americans believe this is a true statement and it is not!  As the chief executive and commander in chief of the armed forces, the President obviously has responsibility for national security.  But to claim that he has no greater responsibility than “protecting the American people” is a paternalistic invention that is historically unfounded and potentially damaging to the political heritage of our nation.

The presidential oath of office that is prescribed by the U.S. Constitution (Art. II, sect. 1) makes it clear that the President’s supreme responsibility is to “…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”, not her people.  There is no mention of public safety.  It is the constitutional order that the President is sworn to protect, even if doing so entails risks to the safety and security of the American people.

There is no mention of providing healthcare, education, lobbyists, murdering of babies, owning land, welfare, interfering in religion, sexual preferences, quartering of troops, political parties or “garbally-goop” legislators believe they have the right to stick their noses in.

Men and Women who desire and demand Power and Control have done just that! Every walk of our lives now has the government intruding in, but it isn’t the Constitution which has done that, but those elected and laws!

The Constitution imposes burdensome limits on the government’s authority and guarantees various rights in order to advance individual freedom.  As a result, the interests of security and constitutional freedom are often in conflict, and it is necessary to give priority to one or the other.

The push is on again for a Convention of States. Ask yourself the question, “Do I trust my elected legislators to do the right thing?” Be honest, if they were currently doing the right thing, you would have no need for a Constitutional Convention. A quick fix with people you don’t trust taking the authority is never a good idea.

“America is great because America is good. When America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” -Alexis de Tocqueville

Article V provides two methods of proposing amendments to our Constitution. (1). Congress proposes amendments and submits them to the States for ratification or (2). Congress “calls” a convention if 2/3 of the States agree and apply to Congress for a convention. All our existing 27 amendments were proposed using the first method. We have never had a convention under Article V – for good reasonWE LOSE ALL CONTROL~

First I would like to remind America that organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) should be outlawed and criminal. Why? Because this is a grouping of various ELECTED STATE LEGISLATORS and CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVES (lobbyists in drag) who gather together to write cookie-cutter laws for statehouses and manage to tap the offices of Congress from time to time and they are calling for a Con V.

ALEC members include many of the nation’s largest companies, a quarter of state legislators, one-fifth of the U.S. Congress, and seven sitting governors and business men who write and support financially bills they see fit to have embrace our country.

We as voters have elected these men and women to sit in Congress, not in a side organization working together to submit legislation and draw favoritism from the corporate allies sitting around the boardroom table. ALEC’s premise is they are sending legislation back to the states is a fallacy in that their involvement in no way shows any concern for the American people.

Currently, we have for the most part a Congress which has colluded and received monetary payment for their votes – some like Paul Ryan in an amount more than $2 MILLION. Should that not be illegal and a call go out for his removal from office and to include all the others who received a monetary “thank you”?

With the power that exists within groups like ALEC, what part is there for everyday working Americans to have a say in any changes to our Constitution through a Convention of States? We are talking about the Constitution the Convention of States people call antiquated, and not up to the times of the 21st Century.

What all this talk of the 21st Century moving forward has shown me is the government’s involvement in issues such as sex (LGBQ), religion Muslim/CAIR, education (government control), our children (taking over parental rights), health (controlling our medical care), land (stealing of our land from the states and its people), guns (stealing ours), and taxes (and lying about how and what is happening with our money). And the original Constitution covered none of these things.

In 2015, Mark Levin went to ALEC to give a talk on a Convention of States and why do you suppose he went to them? Power! Levin stated, “it is to take our power back” to begin the process in which state legislators can reassert their constitutional power and reign in the out-of-control federal government.

But stop – a good share of those in Congress ARE the “swamp” legislators and were the same in their State houses before moving on to the big “swamp” on the hill! With being given the opportunity to play with even bigger money, do you think they will be even more constitutional? Or maybe get paid for their votes again!

Levin, if you want any changes to the Constitution, why not enforce the ORIGINAL 13th Amendment of which has been proven to have been ratified and if implemented, would most certainly “empty the swamp”.

This is a scan from a copy of “Military Laws of the United States,” by Trueman Cross and published in 1825 by Edward de Krafft of Washington. Many books and official government documents printed between 1820 to 1860 contain the original 13th amendment. It was never repealed prior to the current 13th Amendment being voted upon.

The Congress of 1864 in passing the “illegal” 13th Amendment on slavery proved to the world that attorneys should never be elected officials as they are manipulators and liars and have done a very good job of deceiving.

Our Framers NEVER said the purpose of amendments is to restrain the feds if they usurp powers – useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers” (Federalist No. 85, 13th para).

To trust our House Republicans who seem not to know that our Constitution sets the agenda, and our Constitution enumerates the powers delegated to the President, and if they cannot follow the current Constitution then why would Americans trust them to change it or think they would abide by a new version?

People create governments to secure God-given rights. The first three words of our Constitution threw off the European model where political power originates with the State; and establish the new Principle that WE THE PEOPLE are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22, last sentence).

Remember:  The Federal Convention of 1787 Federal and State instructions to Delegates were Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution), (you didn’t know we had already had more than one?), the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74) to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia:  “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

The Continental Congress authorized each of the then 13 States to appoint Delegates to the Convention: Twelve of the States made laws respecting the appointment of Delegates and issuing instructions to Delegates; 10 states instructed their Delegates to propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation; and only two (NC and NH) gave instructions which arguably permitted their Delegates to do more than propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation.

But the Delegates ignored the federal and State limitations and wrote a new Constitution (the one we have now is our second Constitution).  Because of this inherent authority of the Delegatesit is impossible to stop it from happening at a convention today (which will surely result in a third Constitution and they are waiting in the wings).

The Delegates to the 1787 convention also instituted an easier mode of ratification. Whereas Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required approval of all of the then 13 States before an amendment could be ratified; Article VII of the new Constitution provided that only 9 States were required for ratification of the new Constitution.

Does this sound as if you or “We the People” have any cards in this game?

WARNINGS from those wiser than ourselves:

James Madison writes in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that an Article V Convention would give “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our CountryIn Federalist No.49, he shows that the convention method is NOT GOOD to correct breaches of the federal constitution because the People aren’t philosophers – they follow what influential people tell them! And the very legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention so they could control the outcome.

Alexander Hamilton although not one of my favorite founders due to his belief in the banking system, wrote the final entry into the Federalist Papers NO.85 under the name Publius meaning “Concluding Remarks”. At the very end, he wrote:  A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle. The establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy, to the completion of which I look forward with trembling anxiety. I can reconcile it to no rules of prudence to let go the hold we now have, in so arduous an enterprise, upon seven out of the thirteen States, and after having passed over so considerable a part of the ground, to recommence the course. I dread the more the consequences of new attempts, because I know that powerful individuals, in this and in other States, are enemies to a general national government in every possible shape.

I personally see a Convention of States as the second step of our government to the implementation of a One World Government – the first being the North American Union.

To Con-Con or Not

Con-Con:  Throwing the Baby Out with the Bath Water

Notes from various articles by Publius Huldah which can be found at article-v-conv.html /

© Copyright by Diane Kepus, 2017. All rights reserved.

Email Diane:

Diane Kepus
About Diane Kepus 31 Articles
Diane Kepus – Parent, Education/Human Trafficking, Researcher, Speaker... Diane has witnessed the decline in the scholastic achievement levels of our children brought about by the interference of the Federal DOE and individuals/businesses who choose to use our children as “human collateral” for their own financial gains. In the process they are leading them into a Communist agenda/NWO to be overseen by the UN. Diane actually began her Education research regarding the “International Baccalaurate” (IB) program and that has branched out into all aspects of education - foreign and domestic (Gulen Charter schools & UN) and now includes Charter Schools with their “unelected” school boards and focus to eliminate our Representative form of Government. She no longer supports any political party seeing them as a constant division within the country that is never going to be repaired if we continue on this path. Diane considers herself a Christian conservative who believes in the work of our founders which was touched by God and has served us well. Diane maintains several web sites and blogs and she also loves spending time with all the family.


  1. I support STRONGLY an Art-V Convention of States … where my “short-version” reason is that I see so many anti-American “globalists” who are opposed to this convention.

    These globalists are concerned about this “threat” from the hinterland because, although they control much [most?] of DC, they DO NOT control the majority of individual States [CA and NY, of course, are excepted]. But, most certainly, they want to control them; of this I am convinced.

    The USA is the prize MOST coveted by the globalists. Once America is taken, the control of the remainder of the world will be largely a given.

    Note: Regarding this potential Art-V COS, I very much appreciate the view of Diane; however, with her conclusion, I do not agree … and this is for several fundamental reasons for which, at this moment, I do not have time to explain.

    Together in FREEDOM … always!

    PS: I am most interested in the other writings of Diane … where, as a Tea Party person myself, I very much am in agreement with many [most?] of her other expressed positions.

  2. Your point is so true regarding, is it the job of government to protect and provide for the people? The collectivist mindset that has infected the minds of so many Americans, that government is our savior, is killing our freedom (freedom, meaning our ability to garner the responsibility ourselves to decide how we want to live our lives). Of course, the Convention ensures more power to the almighty government. Thank you again for another wonderful commentary.

  3. You are so right! Convention advocates act as if “the states” are our savior! Let’s remember, “the states” ratified the federal income tax constitutional amendment, and “the states” (even red states) have adopted Common Core, expanded Medicaid, accepted federal stimulus dollars and continue to increase their state budgets year after year. I surmise “the states” might favor the “convention of states” (misnomer) Article V resolutions because they include term limits which will allow state legislators to run for Congress sooner rather than later. To claim, as convention advocates do, that “the states” have our best interest at heart rings hollow. “The states” should exercise their authority under the 9th and 10th Amendments rather than try to change our Constitution (if they truly are upset about federal usurpation). No one can predict which amendments would be proposed at a Convention, and Congress, under Article V could choose to ratify amendments by conventions, which anyone in politics knows can be rigged, leaving state legislatures out of the ratification process. Everyone should read Article V of the U.S. Constitution to understand no safeguards exist. Please contact your state legislators to make sure they oppose all resolutions petitioning Congress to call a Convention under Article V.

Comments are closed.