Відео

I wonder what the original definition of "citizen" and "slave" was back then? These people today are trying to challenge the basic definition, and the foundations of this great nation. If we look at the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, enacted March 26, 1790), for example, we can see the originary meaning. That law of the United States Congress set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to "free white person(s) ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, enslaved people, free Africans, Pacific Islanders, and non-White Asians. This eliminated ambiguity on how to treat newcomers, given that free black people had been allowed citizenship at the state level in many states. So, let's be consistent, and not try to overturn all these definitions.

Very nice

👂

lol that's a sign for you mate

To force Government to work and only pass Constitutional laws means that Supreme court justices and judicial system along with law enforcement must enforce only laws that agree with the Constitution.

This man calls himself a Christian

I think there is room here for both sides of the argument; America will benefit from a convention of states. The missing part is the overly strong role the two party system has divulged into. Every election cycle each party colludes to get only the most partisan members nominated and elected. As Convention Of States gets nearer to its goal of 35 states, expect to hear Congress first wailing against the convention, then proposing their own 'compromise' amendments.

This youngster makes a great error thinking our problems can be fixed with more laws on paper. Moral virtue is essential to successful government that is the answer

Where were all of you loud ass race baiters ? And where were you when the white lady in San Francisco was murdered & the animal was acquitted ?

cANNOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ALL BUT 7 YEARS AGO!

Mr. Kelly's statement is right on the mark. You can try to contort a different meaning, but any article or amendment under the purview of the 3 SUBJECT AREAS; term limits, fiscal restraint, and "narrowing" the scope of federal jurisdiction, can be addressed. it would be folly to not think anything under those desirable areas could not be tightened to reduce the DC abuse. I know Article V Anti-Constitutionalists try to conflate narrowing the federal jurisdiction into "Oh no...! They can take away our Constitutional rights..!" which is blatantly false as that would contradict "narrowing" fed power to "expanding" fed power... As Mr. Lewis says, "Words mean things." And narrowing the scope means reducing the broad power DC keeps abusing. I like Mr. Kelly's fire, and he is absolutely right- The Constitution created in 1787 was not for angels; for if men were angels we would not need a government. Nobody can argue against the fact that there definitely are and have been scumbags in all levels of government AND just as true, there are and have been very good people in all levels of government. The work done on the Constitution at its origination was in total very good because of the extended time it took to complete, 4 months of a long, hot summer. And the beauty of the final document is that it worked well with flawed men for the first 100+ years... not so much over the last 100+ years (which the amendments convention we propose under the 3 subject limitations could reverse... hence the Progressivist opposition). Mr. Lewis seems to think that the Supreme Court rulings on constitutionality of certain issues and legislation have had no affect on the Constitution. Mr. Lewis' naïve "newsflash" that we have everything we need in the rulebook of the Constitution. Does his "prop" include all of the rulings the Supreme Court has forced on us as constitutional? Since Mr. Lewis made this statement, the simple majority of 5 out of 9 justices has said that Obamacare is constitutional... Would Mr. Lewis include that ruling as part of his Constitution? We all know that Obamacare is not constitutional, but that does not change the "law of the land" and strict penalties are enforced by the Feds. In fact, the Constitution is now over 2800 pages thick because of these similar constitutional rulings, and the only way to remove them is by an amendments convention... The Supreme Court will never do it...! I just reread the Constitution to see what process is in the Constitution that will support Mr. Lewis' statement that we, the employers, need to demand that "they" do there job. So where do we start these demands... in the courts? (we all know how that will end up)… on the Capitol steps in protest? (that won't show any actual changes in Congress, because the Deep State will see to that)… and the joke that we can vote in "good" people to follow the original Constitution...? Let's focus on that from a couple of angles. (1) 90% of the elected officials in office run for re-election, and of those, 90% get re-elected.! We are talking 50 - 100 years before any change will happen, if any change does happen. The officials staffers will cite any "changes" that are not deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court will be stopped before they even see the light of day. (2) With all due respect to the quoted Governor of North Carolina, I think we all agree that DC is a swamp of terrible nasty things in it, so the idea of sending "good" people to the bad, awful swamp seems futile in the least and disastrous to the nation in the long run. I do agree with Mr. Lewis' quoted Jefferson about the spirit in which the Constitution was created and instead of squeezing a meaning out of the text, read from the basis of "conform to the probable one [meaning] in which it was passed." The Founders at the time of creating the Constitution were well versed in how conventions worked to address the interstate (and colonies) issues of that period. In fact, so much so, they would not understand how we, in our times, could not figure out how a convention works. All previous conventions at that time had been conducted as a call is made by the first state or colony, the call (or as the Constitution names it, the application) contains the agenda of what is to be discussed. All conventions used one state or colony to have one vote, otherwise the smaller states would not have attended having less of a say it matters... why would they? But with the precedent of that one state one vote, these conventions were constant, and the Founders knew it. The probable meaning was unanimously agreed that the federal government can be overridden by the states "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments," and with this amendments power the states working together have more power than the national government. That's the verbiage, that's the historical setting, and that's the meaning in which it was passed...!

So he admits that their are problems at all levels of government but thinks that changing the law is going to make then obey the law? Since when do we change the law when the law is being broken? AND allow the people who are breaking the law to rewrite it? That is insanity.

You're the ones who are the disbelievers and don't believe in the the truth in the Quran you believe lies and deception and you will pay for in the end Allah is one and only true god and no one has the right to be worshipped but him and Muhammad is his massager Jesus was a prophet and not God's son and you know that but you choose not to see but you will see the truth in the end the bible is full of lies

The first speaker said that even if all we get out of a COS is a balanced budget amendment, and Congress weasels around it, it will still be worth it. Right there is an argument against one of the amendments.

Thank you for this! I've been screaming that this is a Trojan Horse! This is dangerous and puts other rights into jeopardy.

He was a blood that's how the game go! I bet he listened to gang related rap he sure did dress like it!

All lives matter fuck this fool!

He was a gang member dressed like a gang member should have been a better father now you he's blaming others

So if I understand Mr. Hays' position correctly, it is that the Founders made a grave error in including the convention of states provision in Article V......... and yet he strongly supports the rest of the Constitution.

I stopped watching as soon as I saw the opening introduction which claimed that George Soros and the Koch brothers are spending millions to trigger an article V convention. Isn't it ironic, if that is true, that spokespersons from various Soros funded organizations are testifying AGAINST an article V convention in state legislatures across the nation? Is Soros unaware that his underlings are working against him?

Hmmmm even Texas is more liberal than most people can imagine.... I would say that if every state was like Texas a COS would work, but even then, the only reason I would trust Texas right now is bc of our Governor track record.

The FAILED Tea Party brought us ILLEGAL ALIEN RAPHAEL EDUARDO CRUZ who, having renounced his Canadian citizenship in 5/2014, is now a man without a country. He's running unopposed on the Texas 2017 ballot so he will be RE~SELECTED AGAIN. Another term of the illegal sitting Senator LYINGted Cruz. What makes me think the same faulty thinking people are a teeny bit correct about the ConCon. We just need to look at the 1787 ConCon to know how we were railroaded from The Article of Confederation losing our states right!!!

One big thing I caught here is that most people BELIEVE the US Constitution was written to limit the federal government....that is blatantly false. There are exactly 6 (six) reasons the US Constitution was written for....they're all listed in the missions statement or Preamble. The word limit does not appear there. It DOES limit the federal government, STATE governments AND THE PEOPLE ( it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND....do you REALLY think the founders meant that the people did not have to adhere to it?) but that is incidental to the mission. It was written to PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PERIOD!!! It is NOT a limiting document....it is a LIBERATING document.....Too many people (most ALL people) have no idea what the preamble says...or the rest of the US Constitution for that matter...

Samuel Huntington (July 16, 1731 - January 5, 1796) The First President of the United States?

H.R. 1041 deserves a vote.

Help elect me to Congress to introduce the State Militia Restoration Act next January. #Landholt2016

There's a coalition of some 300 leftist groups that want to bring on their ideas for amendments to the Constitution. Just look them up, it is called movetoamend.org. Don't let the proponents of the Article V Convention fool you with their speculations that there won't be progressives, or Communists, or other leftist radicals attending the convention as delegates. That's just their speculation, not a fact.

The states don't set the agenda for the Article V Convention, as Farris claims, He's confusing people. The truth is that the convention will set the agenda for the Article V Convention once they are assembled and convened. Article V gives the entire power to "propose amendments" to the attendees at the convention. The state legislatures will not be at the convention telling their delegates what they can draft. The Convention is an autonomous deliberative body that can draft what it will or not draft what it will not. Farris is simply wrong with his claim. Let's look at Congress, for example, when Congress acts under Article V to propose amendments. Does Congress have to propose amendments proposed to them by the States? No. Congress is an autonomous deliberative body when acting under Article V, just as the convention's delegates will be autonomous in their deliberations and drafting. 1787's convention also acted on its own when convened. Did some delegates leave because the convention? Yes, but did that stop the convention's proceedings? No. Even retired law professor Robert Natelson agrees that the delegates decide what to draft or not to draft as proposals at the Article V Convention and the proponents of triggering the convention put Natelson on a pedestal. Even Mark Levin points to Natelson in his book on page 16 as one of those who helped him change his mind from his opposition to an Article V Convention to becoming a proponent of the convention, and a proponent suggesting at least 10 amendments of his own.

He just admitted they were ALL scumbags, so why in the world would anyone want THE SCUMBAGS to be in charge of this process? We need to elect NON-SCUMBAGS before trying something like this.

Is the website dead? I tried to contact Dee at dee@patriotcoalition.com but email bounced. I emailed Jeff, Richard and Dawn. Waiting to see if those bounce, too. I can be reached 24/7 at 432.934.6338 You hate the IRS, don’t you? And you would like to stop paying income taxes w/o fear of the Federal Mafia bashing in your door. As the only congressional candidate with the guts to reveal there is no law making the average working Americans liable for filing and paying income taxes, you need to “help me, help you" by supporting my political campaign. We the People need to stop financing our own destruction. I'm willing to stick my neck out there for you. The least you can do is support me with donations and by helping spread the word by any means, social media, email, etc., to make this campaign go viral. Send me a FB friend request and begin your education at wesharecommunityprojects.com/wesharecrowdfunding/index.cfm?username=NoTaxesTexasGovernor

Is the comma necessary in "JOIN, or DIE"?

The way this proposal was written (and hence how it was conceived), to me, demonstrates the fundamental lack of understanding today as to the spirit and intent of the constitution and bill of rights. This proposal starts with the assumption government can do what it wants and sets out to define exceptions and by taking this approach, as the doctor noted, it actually gives government that very power. As he also said, parental rights should be argued as part of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, or maybe manifest destiny. By framing it as an exemption to blanket state control it effectively negates the existence of the former. We have moved away from the idea of inherent rights and into the realm of government-provided rights which are in fact privileges, not rights. Rights are not a list of things government owes its citizens, not carrots offered for good behavior, rights are a list of things in which government may not interfere.

Farris kept bringing up George Mason as the one who insisted Article V be included in the Constitution. What no one brought up was the fact that George Mason was one of only three delegates at the first Constitutional Convention who refused to sign the Constitution! George Mason did not believe the Constitution established a "wise and just government." Wow. Furthermore, once a Convention convenes, it is its own entity separate from the States and Congress--which means they can completely overhaul the ratification process itself, despite any limitation acts passed by state legislatures or rules set by Congress ... just like the delegates did at the first convention.

Excellent testimony - Jamiel Shaw

Article V (Article 5 - Mode of Amendment) 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. READ the Article! This is NOT a Constitutional Convention! This is an Article V Convention. If either ONE of these two were Honest. They would STOP calling it what it is NOT. Article V specifies the Article itself is PROPOSING Convention NOT a Re-Writing Convention. The "delegates are not called delegates, they are called Commissioners, People from each State that are Commissioned BY THEIR State Legislatures. The Federal Government has only THREE things they do under Article V, 1) The Congress (Both Houses) takes the Applications for an Article V Convention, 2) When 2/3s (34 at this time) the Congress (Both Houses) CALL the Convention, SHALL is the word, The Call is to Name a Place and a Date (Time). 3) The Congress Specifies the Ratification Method, either by the vote of 3/4s of the State's Legislatures voting it up or down for EACH Amendment or BY an INTERSTATE Convention, This it the exact same way ALL Amendments are Passed or Rejected by the 3/4s (38 States). This DEBATE is Flawed by BOTH of these people debating in this video. READ the Constitution and READ Specifically the words of ARTICLE V WITH all of the Punctuation. Article V is written on an Eighth Grade reading Comprehension Level. There are NO risks with any Article V Convention, The Legislatures are the closest to the People and will do what the People want Not what the Congress wants. If they do otherwise they risk their Jobs and Seats in the State Legislature. The man on the left in this debate is Correct.

The simple truth is that amending the Constitution will not make anyone uphold it. The Constitution is a piece of paper. Until we elect public servants who will keep their oath, changing words on the paper won't change people's behavior. It doesn't matter which mode of proposing Amendments is used. It is the wrong solution to the wrong problem. Simple as that.

Keep Yo head Up Bro

Perhaps Edwin Vieria is losing his mind. Article V is and always has been in our Constitution. Apparently, either he hasn't read Madison's notes and George Mason's argument which led to the final wording of Article V at the constitutional convention. Regardless, Article V isn't controversial, it simply permits a super-majority of the states to amend the constitution, not recreate the constitution. It simply provides another way to amend the constitution. Dwight Eisenhower, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and many others came out in support of amending the constitution in this manner - as opposed to solely relying on our DC politicians to do so. Given of current predicament supporting an Article V Convention is a no-brainer for anyone who is awake. Today, the vast majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, the coddling illegal aliens and numerous other crap that our government is jamming down our throats. We have already been fundamentally transformed and are no longer a constitutional republic. Sort of a revolution, this is the only alternative that provides a way to restore our republic,

NDAA Twilight-Zone is TREASON. Stay away from CRRREATORS sites or WE DEPLOY

The problem is that IQ's have apparently dropped off a ledge over the last few decades. I'm amazed at how low comprehension levels are. I think that Vieira is perfectly logical from, not only the standpoint of a modern convention as opposed that, which occurred at the outset of this nation, but also the primary failing of Americans to know and understand the law. Most don't know or understand what the current Constitution states, and how to enforce it. We don't want to "execute the Laws of the Union" now, what makes anyone believe that more words will resolve the issues? What delegates are we going to send? Are we going to send the same so-called patriots that don't want to enforce the current Constitution? Are we going to send the same people who subscribe to the notion that the state can create, in contradiction to the rule of law, any enforcement agencies they wish. That the court can create law out of whole-cloth? Read the Constitution as if you never heard of the supreme court and its usurpation of the law. It is an amazing document. The flaws, as was predicted by men such as Henry and Yates, are created by the judiciary and a failure of the public.

Our individual liberties, freedoms and rights are as safe, IF NOT SAFER, in the hands of the Convention of States as they are in the hands of the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court!! It is precisely because those institutions have overreached and have circumvented the rights of the states and the citizens that a corrective convention is needed at this time. There is no indication that any of them will voluntary backtrack from their infringement on our rights. The Convention to propose amendments (which must be ratified by 3/4 of the states to become law) can and will give the states and the people a means of reining in this overbearing unconstitutional Federal government. Get the FACTS without the hysteria at: conventionofstates.com

This is deceptive. He did NOT say the whole Constitution could be re-written as a result of the CoS, and it CANNOT be. The Convention can only PROPOSE AMENDMENTS that LIMIT the power of the Federal government. All proposed amendments must be voted on at the Convention and, if passed, must be RATIFIED by 3/4 of the States before they become law. Thirteen states can prevent a PROPOSED AMENDMENT from becoming LAW. To suggest that they can re-write the Constitution is absurd, dishonest, and unfair.

THE LEADER'S WEEKLY SCHEDULE Legislation Considered Under Suspension of the Rules: www.majorityleader.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/1.5-Weekly-PDF2.pdf

Why a Constitutional Convention? Dr. Edwin Vieira does not seem to completely understand the issue. Congress is never going to pass Amendments limiting their power. They just aren't. That is why Dr. Farris wants to go directly to the people and adopt a bottom-up, grassroots approach that utilizes petitions and state legislatures instead of pork-loving Congressional committees. Too vague? Look at the original "permission granted" by Congress for the first Constitutional Convention: " . . . a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union." Boy, Dr. Vieira sure would have blown his top about that one! Talk about "vague." But the Convention of States advocates do not want to rewrite the Constitution, (no one would support them if they did) and as a result they have put far more limits in place: "Section 1. The legislature of the State of ______ hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress." The Convention will have the authority to propose amendments that impose fiscal restraints. Such amendments can be debated and must later be ratified. The Convention also will have the authority to propose amendments that limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government and impose term limits. The accusation that this is "too vague" is unqualified. The Convention is limited to three reasonably broad spheres that the Convention will act on. The actual amendments proposed will be far more specific.

YOUR PREMIS IN THE OPENING STATEMENT IS INACCURATE. THIS IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION , IT IS A CONVENTION OF THE STATES TO AMEND THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION. EVERY THING APPROVED BY THE CONVENTION HAS TO BE ACCEPTED by MAJORITY OF TWO THIRDS of THE STATES legislatures or voters. WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE WORDING OF EVERY APPLICATION .

The best way of protecting the Constitution. The best way to protect the Constitution is to have all Oath Keepers stand up and uphold their oath to protect the Constitution as written. If we are STUPID enough to give the liars of our times an open door to a convention where they can change any thing they want this is what YOU will get.... A convention if held will allow the liars of our times to change and remove our Declared God Given Rights which are Rights (You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights) www.unalienable.com/unalien.htm replacing unalienable rights with Government Granted Privileges (Inalienable rights) that can be taken from us at the whim of whoever may be in power! DO NOT FALL FOR THE LIES OF THIS CONVENTION KNOW WHO IS BEHIND THIS AND KNOW THEY (LEFT & RIGHT) ARE WORKING TOGETHER>>>

Why don't you create. Playlist so all of the visits of this interview will play automatically?

Excellent points by Assemblyman Bob Marshall concerning the ability of a modern convention to change ratification rules. Totally brought Michael Farris's points into question.

the answer is to walk into a grand jury, present evidence of laws being broken. The indictments must be followed up by the AG and sheriff. the next step would be citizen grand juries and citizens appointed as officers to enforce the grand juries indictments.

foreign propaganda