Trova il tuo prossimo libro preferito

Abbonati oggi e leggi gratis per 30 giorni
We the People: The Strategy to Convene a Convention – For Republic Review

We the People: The Strategy to Convene a Convention – For Republic Review

Leggi anteprima

We the People: The Strategy to Convene a Convention – For Republic Review

351 pagine
4 ore
Mar 3, 2014


If you have read books from Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, William F. Buckley, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage, then you will find this book insightful as contrast to these and many writers of conservative thought. Instead of pointing to prevailing thought and concepts the authors have discovered a new process that will actually instill hope for those who want to see the Federal government aligned with Constitution. Consequently, the authors point out in this second book that the framers not only created a very effective process, they also devised the process in stopping Federal usurpation and tyranny.

Not only are the arguments sound the two tired plan introduced into this book is the playbook that breaks the status-quo, whcih has been repeated for over a century. Therefore, if one simply wants instructions as to how to apply the needed aid to our bleeding nation, then “We the People: The Strategy to Convene a Convention – For Republic Review” will provide the necessary background to do so. The simplicity of the strategy is based upon what the framers utilized to convene the first Continental Congress and can now be used to convene a convention for the primary stakeholders of this compact to perform a review or an audit of the general government as to how the general government is aligned to Constitution. The stakeholder’s of this contract is the Republic not the general government. In essence, “We the People: The Strategy to Convene a Convention – For Republic Review,” applies the Resolution or nullification powers to the greater problem we face today, which is full scale tyranny from the Federal Government and delineates hot the Republic not only has the power but the obligation to fix the out of control usurpation of roles, responsibilities, and powers (RRPs) by the Federal government.
Mar 3, 2014

Informazioni sull'autore

Correlato a We the People

Libri correlati
Articoli correlati

Anteprima del libro

We the People - G. R. Mobley


Corrections, Clarifications, and Reiterations

The Three-fourths Rule

In the first book We the People: Whose Constitution is it Anyway, the ratification process was incorrectly conveyed as needing to meet a two-thirds measure, or a minimum of 34 States for ratification. This two-thirds rule only applies if the States are requesting to convene a convention for amending the Constitution. The two-thirds rule is also the minimum requirement for both legislative bodies (the House and the Senate) to pass an Amendment to be sent to the President for signature and forwarding to the States for ratification. For the States to ratify a change to the Constitution requires three-fourths of the States to approve. Once the States ratify an Amendment with three-fourths of the States requirement then what ever was purposed can be considered Constitutional.

Putting this in to context with numbers, to approve an Amendment regardless of its origin, requires a three-fourths majority or 38 states or more. Consequently, in the rejection process it will only require 13 States to reject or repeal any and all unconstitutional roles, responsibilities, or powers (RRP) that the Federal government has assumed that is not enumerated in the Constitution. By the law of the land and as pointed out in the first book, for the general government to take on a new RRP such as the Department of Interior or Transportation requires the general government to follow the Article V process which is again is the two thirds measure of both houses and three-fourths of the States. How many States opposed the Affordable Care Act? Can one now see why the Federal government has subverted the republican process of our Constitutional Republic?

The first book conveyed the requirement as 17 States required to undo or reject a proposed change to the Constitution; however the actual required number of States to reject a proposal regardless of its origins is 13 States. This is obviously an easier threshold to meet to restrain government. Again, had Congress and the President followed the Constitutional process identified in Article V for the Affordable Care Act, which was opposed by at least 28 States, it would have been dead on arrival at the States and the nation would not have to suffer at the hands of Federal tyranny. This applies to all the entitlement programs and several other usurpations over the past 170 years.

Roles, Responsibilities, and Powers (RRP)

This acronym is used extensively and refers to the enumerated RRPs in the Constitution.

Limited and Defined

In the first book, the case was made in many different ways that the instilled general government was a limited one and was limited to only the enumerated powers in the Constitution. As Madison referred to this in different times, the general government was not only limited, it was defined. When one hears someone mention that they want to get back to a limited government they are missing the other equally important part of the government. That is one that is defined. The Constitution clearly defines in the first three Articles the defined scope of the general government. In addition, the Bill of Rights limits with a nugatory check, things the Federal government cannot do. Therefore, it is critical for citizens to understand the point in fact that the general or Federal government is not only limited, but defined as well. Consequently, if the general government is to take on a new role, responsibility, or power (RRP), then the RRP has to be defined as well.

If one considers the listing of powers in Article I, when the Federal government is given a RRP like that of Prohibition as done in the XVIII Amendment, then it is incumbent for the States to define the RRP’s clearly. This way one can avoid RRP creep where the Federal government seizes more powers than intended. Again, in the beginning of the Republic the States, during the Constitutional Convention and ratification process, defined the general governments RRP’s. They did not let the general government write their own definitions, which is tantamount to the fox guarding the henhouse.

Republic Review

The first book introduced the concept of Republic Review in Section IV, and this term has taken on life of its own and a harmonizing resonance as a natural byproduct of nullification. This process, though not directly mentioned or discussed was a common concept with the framers, but never articulated clearly nor was it executed due to the reverence of service by those who served. As the framers and State leadership understood their role in the Republic, they clearly engaged and spoke up as well as their Representatives in both the House and Senate whenever the Federal government was stepping outside their defined limitations, such as the Bank Assumption Act, the Sedition Act, or even the Louisiana Purchase, just to name a few.

Furthermore, the framers had such a profound understanding and respect for the process that they amended the Constitution per the process for the Bill of Rights in 1789. Again the Republic Amended the Constitution in placing limitations on the Supreme Court in 1794, and Amended the Constitution once again for electing the President in 1803. Setting a consistent standard in complying with the Article V process for any modification made or restriction applied to the Constitution, whether they be procedural or in context to the enumeration of RRP's. Therefore, proving and setting precedence that the codified constitutional processes worked and all changes were subject to the State's approval or rejection as the final arbiters of what will be considered Constitutional and what is not.

Today, because the States have ignored their responsibility to interpose on behalf of their citizens and the Republic from general government usurpations, they must now convene in a Convention. The concept of a convention for many not knowing what it really means either baffles or scares some. A point in fact, the States can convene several types of conventions. A Constitutional Convention is one with the intent of rewriting, or significantly amending the existing Constitution. Another convention would be one simply to amend the Constitution. The one the author is recommending first is one to perform a review of both the Constitution and the general government, and identifying which RRP's that are not contained within the Constitution, and determine whether there is merit in retaining each RRP or not. Those RRP's that need to be retained must be placed into an Amendment by the Convention or sent to Congress for Amending the Constitution. Sending it back to Congress would force them to create the language, and pass the Amendment by the appropriate two-thirds majority by both houses.

Why is this important, Obamacare could not come close to getting two-thirds majority in either house, and thus would not have wasted the Presidents ink to sign an unconstitutional Bill! Book one covers the review process at a high level and the third book will discuss this in much greater specifics with recommendations of alternate solutions. Suffice it to say, that the Republic Review is the act of those who constitutionally possess the authority to fix the discrepancies between the general government and the Constitution. Therefore, the paramount function of our time if America is going to save the Constitution and individual liberty would be to convene a convention to perform a Republic Review to analyze and determine whether the States believe the general government should have a specific RRP that is not enumerated in the Constitution. This way the general government and the Constitution can finally align with each other once again.

Referencing to the First Book

The author recognizes the necessity of editing processes for publishing literature appropriately, and as stated in the first as well as this book, these works are being published in the form of a pamphlet. This is due to what the author asserts as well as many others who believe the Republic may not survive much longer with the way the Federal government is spending and printing money and a list of other things that is putting the nation at risk. Therefore, the cost and time it would take to polish these works now into a more literary work for public consumption may jeopardize the Republics ability to engage in a timely manner. In warfare, intelligence has no value if not in time for the commander to make a decision. Therefore, it is the author’s hope that one will not excuse the author, but recognize the exigencies at hand and provide an allowance for the rigidity and rough patches of these pages contained in the first three released books. Once the final book of the three is published, the author will then perform the appropriate editing. Consequently, when one see’s the usage of book as it refers to this work, it should be recognized as more of a pamphlet due to the expediency exercised in publishing these works.

One will find a plethora of references to the first or third books because the intent is to streamline what is to be included in this work independently. Once all three books are completed they will eventually be merged into a single volume and the references will be corrected to point to the appropriate Sections and subsections. One will also notice that there are some references to another series of books. These books are subsequent that will delve deeply into very specific topics that were touched on in this series, but political exigencies did not permit for this work to include the details that these topics deserve. An example of this is the elimination of the welfare state. Therefore, the author intends on writing about ways this can be done in alignment with liberal, republican, and Christian based solutions. This sounds altruistic on the surface; however, it is only through open and honest dialogue that the Republic can integrate working solutions for the twenty-first century.

Forms of Government

In the beginning of Section II, the author breaks down governance and governments for a very important reason. This is because the American citizen has not been taught about their form of government. Worse yet, they have been taught that their government is the antithesis of what the framers and founders intended. It is paramount for one to understand republicanism and what the framers created. As analysts examine the texts available and the philosophies of government, most have concluded that what the framers created was far more advanced than any other society has been able to devise. What they created was a government that was designed to empower the individual and restraint was placed on government from being able to whimsically grow.

As succinct and concise as possible, the author offers this analogy once again from the first book. As disparate colonies, we stood up against the greatest empire for many reasons, but one primary reason was we were being taxed and were not able to have representation in parliament. We have now digressed to a point where we are giving representation to those who pay no taxes, or aptly put representation without taxation. This is tantamount to making Ford allow General Motor’s share holders vote in a Ford shareholders meeting. Worse yet, pernicious people are seeking to give non-citizens the ability to vote in liberal States, such as California. Why not send one billion blank ballots to China as well and allow them to vote. If one considers skin in the game China owns a lot of our nation’s debt compared to Mexico investment in America. Unfortunately, too many today lack the ethical standards, principles, or morals to do the right thing, especially if doing the wrong thing supports their ends by building up a large class of dependents to the dole as indentured servants.

In 1770, Thomas Jefferson was the first framer who expressed in a court of law that all men were created equal. Today, many espouse Jeffersonian democracy and consider it a model of pure democracy where mob rule and social justice are tenants of this. However, one must examine precisely what he espoused, and in his first inaugural address on March 4 1801, he defined the sound principles of republican democracy as:

1. "Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political;

2. Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none;

3. The support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies;

4. The preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad;

5. A jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided;

6. Absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism;

7. A well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them;

8. The supremacy of the civil over the military authority;

9. Economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened;

10. The honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith;

11. Encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid;

12. The diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason;

13. Freedom of religion;

14. Freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected" (Jefferson, 1801, para 4).

Clearly Jeffersonian democracy defined limitations and boundaries upon government; as identified above, the States bore the responsibility as the fortification (i.e. bulwark) against anti-republican tendencies (i.e. Federal usurpations, and unconstitutional seizure of roles, responsibilities, and powers).

Consequently, the first book provides an irrefutable argument to convene a convention by giving citizens:

1. Historical insights to our origins of individual liberty and sovereignty and our sacred responsibility to protect them.

2. The process of innovating a new form of republicanism with the byproduct of installing a hybrid Constitutional Republic with limited and defined roles, responsibilities, and powers for the general government.

3. Precisely how we began to veer outside these aforementioned limitations and boundaries and how progressively destructive secular progressives have been at the altar of government to a point that they are now upon the precipice of discarding the Constitution altogether.

4. Finally, the only Constitutional solution at the disposal of the Republic that can cleanse the general government of its destructive powers and place the United States again back as a leader of individual liberty and sovereignty by coalescing the States into an online Constitutional Convention (as suggested in book 1 and will be expounded up in book 3).

Time is of the essence, and there is no way the Republic has the luxury of time to work on a placid plan of engaging under the party system because the parties are not interested in going back to republicanism and the hybrid Constitutional Republic. Both parties are enjoying their ability to wield unrestrained powers from the sleeping Republic. They have now placed us on a course of sure collapse and each side believes they have a solution to save us; however, their directions and solutions are the ultimate course of subjugation.

Consequently, there was not enough time to publish the first book that provides the argument to cover a strategy as to how to do this, and in all honesty, the plan did not unfold until the recent procurement of The Blaze. Therefore, the writing of this pamphlet over the course of two months has been purely a result of inspiration. This book will provide not only hope, but a salient plan for Patriots, righteous citizens and religious leaders to engage the Republic and begin to set the landscape of the Republic on fire again for the protection of individual liberty and sovereignty and defense from tyranny and despotism.

The third book will delve into the details of how each State will need to construct areas and architectures for conducting the online Constitutional Convention for Republic Review. Similar to a corporate infrastructure; however, the communications that traverses the internet will need to be encrypted to isolate the environment form hackers. The third book will also dive into the details of priorities and committee structures to ensure the convention can quickly address whether a role, responsibility or power that is not enumerated in the Constitution be discarded or Amended to the Constitution.

The Department of Babysitting

In the first book, there were a few examples provided of a new Department under the Federal government. This Department was a sarcastically referred to as the Department of Babysitting, as an example of just how far central planners will go to carry out their statist vision of utopia. As sarcastic as it may seem, if one has read the fundamental works of statist ideologies such as the Republic by Plato or even the Communist Manifesto by Engels and Marx, one cannot be surprised how Statists envision the necessity of controlling 1) birth, 2) education, and 3) cultural mores. Therefore, there has to be a plan for government to intrude into the one thing that built this society long ago, long before Socrates thought and that one thing is the family. It is the last frontier for Marxism, and will be as equally destructive as splitting the atom. Yes, this will be a blatant overreach for the Federal government but so was Hillarycare.

If one has read Hillary Clinton’s "It Takes a Village," one should be able to pick up the subtle undertones of statist involvement from having a worker assigned to the home from the early pregnancy stage through the birth of the child and carrying well into the educational years. She explains this as necessary, to ensure parenting and education is being appropriately administered. There may be fundamental basics that the author agrees with regarding the importance of education and parenting; however, these are basic at best and most of her and other progressive solutions being offered would be a flagrant violation of individual liberty and sovereignty.

Clearly, the ground work is present for a drastic shift to occur, but no direct connection to the suitability of parenting. In this book, Hillary speaks to the importance of two parents and that society must accommodate the household that brings in the nations posterity. Therefore, the author will take a leap here in predicting Hillary Clinton’s policies for the Department of Babysitting, based upon her and the progressive agenda that aligns with Platonism.

1. The State must be directly involved in the process from the point of pregnancy in context of ensure appropriate pre-natal care is provided

2. The State must be involved after a child is born to ensure inoculations and appropriate development is being provided so the child will be ready for their first job at 3 (preschool).

3. Single parent homes are inadequate and that society will be better off moving a child to a two parent home.

4. Religious dogma is unacceptable in American society especially with highly impressionable minds like infants, toddlers, and preschool children to confuse them with biases.

5. Compliance to State policies is compulsory or the child will be taken.

6. Married and committed homosexuals are suitable parents.

a. Placing a child in this type of home would be better than a single parent home or a home with strong religious values.

b. These home are more likely to be complaint to State policies

7. Children must be secular and tolerant towards secularism.

8. Children should be given the best social education because these ideologies are imperative to a successful utopian society.

If time was not precious, the author would provide a thorough book report on the danger of such arrogant thought being applied to a society based upon individual liberty. However, former Senator, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her husband former President Clinton, and all the other progressives are, and have always been, the enemies to individual liberty and sovereignty. According to progressives, no one knows what is good for a person more than a progressive leader or a leftist ideologue.

If one reads her book, then one should cogitate during the points of the book when Hillary speaks of Bill and what he suffered as truly an unfortunate child, watching his stepfather beat his mother, and how great she asserts Bill is for rising above this; how can this be? In Hillary’s Statist world, no child would ever have to suffer this because only the State can deliver this kind of promise. Again, how could a child rise above adverse conditions that he dealt with and become a Rhodes Scholar, protest America fighting the spread of communism overseas and then become President espousing even more globalist policies (i.e. NAFTA GATT)? It is obvious that Hillary and the progressives do not understand the incredible capacity of the human condition and spirit thriving in a world with some fundamental liberties. To her it had to be a miracle... this is why one should begin to worry that the culmination of all Statist ideologies are now at the precipice of being grounded into the Constitutional Republic (unconstitutionally of course).

If one believes Child Protective Services borders on a fascist side of enforcement, then how will Hillary’s Department of Babysitting be kinder and gentler at the Federal level? It cannot! Nevertheless, according to Hillary in the aforementioned book, she truly believes that the State could do a much better job in raising a young man. Maybe she is trying to ensure that the world never has to face another Bill. Regardless, Hillary has no use for individual liberty and sovereignty in her vision of democracy. Once a person is elected, all sovereignty shifts to the new Executive.

Again, this is why one should become very concerned with the politicians rising in the ranks of the deep left political machine. Hillary has been a star not because she is a woman, but because of her ideologies; thus she believes she knows what is better for America than anyone else. The point in fact is this she is far more militant than Bill and a tyrant unfit to hold public office for one of two reasons. The first is her fragility and health limitations due for over a month. Second, if the first was not a legitimate problem than Hillary has a lot of explaining to do as to why the first concern (health) kept her from doing her job for a long period of time, not just a day or a week.

One can easily go into her actions overall in being called accountable as a public servant. Her actions have exuded one who believes they are beyond reproach and above the law. Regardless, where were her displays of remorse and the conceding that this travesty could have been avoided in front of Congress? Sure earlier she said she was responsible, but all her actions and words in front of Congress were deflections and excuses. The point in fact, she and her Department neglected to address the security concerns and requests that were raised by the principle emissary regarding security and failed to follow suit with Benghazi like the British Embassy who closed their facility down. Neither she nor anyone in her Department has been held accountable to answer for this dereliction of duty. For anyone to defend Hillary, they must marginalize the loss of life and anyone who can do this will even more easily marginalize ones loss of liberties as necessary to met their ends. As history has proven Hayek correct, tyrants always rise to the top of political groups based on anarchy or pure democracy.

Religion and Individual Liberty and Sovereignty

In Section I, emphasis was placed upon the evolution of Christianity and disparate religions. In context to Christianity emphasis was placed upon the priesthoods as fundamental tenants from the beginning of time as well as the necessity for Christ to build his Church with these same Priesthoods. This lends to consistency and somewhere one may find that you will know him by his consistencies to again the fundamental tenants.

Consequently, there were several assertions that are paramount for one to consider. The first is the role all mankind played in the plan of salvation, that merely by the fact that we live means that we were numbered with the two-thirds in heaven who remained and were not cast out. This is why the discussion was offered as to Christ’s teachings and his plan of salvation. Those who have lived on earth were those who

Hai raggiunto la fine di questa anteprima. Registrati per continuare a leggere!
Pagina 1 di 1


Cosa pensano gli utenti di We the People

0 valutazioni / 0 Recensioni
Cosa ne pensi?
Valutazione: 0 su 5 stelle

Recensioni dei lettori