It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Tea Party Patriots cofounder Mark Meckler praises democrats for joining Article V Convention bloc

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 01:43 PM

Though Convention of States support is mainly comprised of Republicans, Democrats and independents are joining the cause as the IRS scandal, the NSA, privacy concerns, and other instances of federal government’s overreach dominate the news. On the Assembly’s second day, delegates elected committee chairs and co-chairs for three committees: Rules and Procedures, Judiciary, and Planning, Communication and Finance. Importantly, the working committees of the Assembly of State Legislatures have bipartisan leadership – with a Democrat and Republican legislator serving as co-chairs for each.

This quote isn't from a progressive, or socialist or what-may-have-you. This is from he co-founder of Tea Party Patriots and alleged constitutionalist, Mark Meckler. He wrote this at:

This is the Mt Vernon Assembly in Indianapolis Indiana, now called the Assembly of State Legislators. The convention of states, or an Article V Convention, but by whatever name you use it is a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, is discussed here by representatives of 33 states. Here is a quote from a facebook status made on December 8, 2013 by Kelly Townsend, a State rep from Arizona.

Here is my report on the 5th Amendment Mt. Vernon Assembly -
It was an honor to be attending the meeting at the Fred W. Smith National Library for the Study of George Washington, across from the Mt. Vernon estate. The idea was of Rep. Chris Kapenga from Wisconsin, about 97 Legislators came (at their own expense) to the library to discuss a potential amendment to the US Constitution. We did not discuss what that amendment would be, but rather discussed the details of how to get to the point where we can petition Congress for a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing the Amendment(s).

There were a few dominating issues, and the room was filled with brilliant and careful minds. Most important seemed to be preventing rogue delegates from causing a runaway convention, and possibly equally important to the group was making sure that it was a bi-partisan effort.

This should be alarming to everyone, and anyone still supporting a convention of the states should drop out now. These are direct quotes, one from the "champion" of states rights, the other from a representative to a conference whose stated goal is NOT what changes need to be made to government but on HOW to create a convention that can change the government in any way the delegates wish.

For those of you who still think the states can have some kind of control to keep an Article V convention from turning into a runaway convention, just remember we have only TWO precedents to run off of here. The 1787 constitutional convention and the Confederate's 1860 convention. In BOTH instances, every part of the convention was held in secret so as to limit the influence of outside parties. If a modern day convention was held, there would be no way to know what was discussed at it until after it was over.

The constitution specifically says the congress, the one in Washington DC, calls a convention on the application of 2/3 of states. Congress has no choice but to do it on the application of 34 states. Congress makes the rules on how delegates from the states are chosen. Congress can choose how amendments are ratified. The Articles of Confederation said all states had to ratify an amendment. The constitution made it so only 3 out of 4 states had to. This change was made at the 1787 convention, it is reasonable to assume a modern day convention would have the power to change that number of states needed to ratify to one half, or to none. Congress chooses how the states ratify amendments. With the abolition of prohibition, the Utah State Senate said not a drop of liquor would be allowed into its state. Instead of allowing the state legislators to ratify the amendment, congress chose for a ratifying convention to be held in each of the states and Utah ratified the 21st amendment.

By the admission of the conservative leadership, a modern day convention must be bi-partisan. What kind of delegates do you think California would send? When you have books written by the likes of John Paul Stevens, calling for an end to the second amendment, what do you think a modern day convention will accomplish? When you have states like Hawaii, that attempted to call a convention for the means of limiting the second amendment and putting obamacare into the constitution (the hawaii state legislator did not pass this resolution) what kinds of amendments will this convention propose?

posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:36 PM
I don't think that states can 'control' an article V convention, but I know the current Government is already screwed up beyond repair and SOMETHING has to be done. I would like to see the US break up into smaller pieces much like the Russians did after the USSR. We need some succession to take place so people of common principles and morals can separate themselves from other areas of the country that want to go back to a European style of oppression.

posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:57 PM
a reply to: MisterMandlebrot

There has never been an Article V Convention. I personally believe that we need one now. People are scared of having one because they don't know all the facts concerning it. First and foremost any proposed amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of States (38), not an easy thing to do these days. Second, it has never happened before for a reason, when specific Amendments are proposed by the people or by States and they began rallying for a Convention... Congress buckled and made the amendment. So the threat of one can be enough to get some change.

At the moment two State Legislatures (Vermont and California) have called for an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution to state that corporations are not people and money is not speech.

ETA: Can't get the video to embed properly because it's part of a playlist so I'll give the link (it's the 27th video)

edit on 6/30/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:12 PM
a reply to: MisterMandlebrot

If we aren't sure what it's about, why stop supporting it - am missing something?

This news is giving me a tiny spark of hope that maybe things are going to turn around for the country, before it's too late. We are on our last chance.

posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:47 PM
I think it would be good to have the convention.

The ability to do this is there for a reason: so that we (the people of the United States of America) can exact changes that we (the people of the United States of America) want to have done through majority rule.

The very fact that we CAN have and do something like this is important.

All one needs to do is go back and look over threads here on ATS. Take a look around you too. There are a LOT of people that are unhappy with the way our government is right now.

It doesn't matter if you lean left or you lean right. BOTH sides of the aisle as of late are unhappy with something, if not a lot of things that have been going on (and I'm talking about decades now).

This should be exciting, interesting and, yes, scary too. Change can be scary because it might be good change...or we could end up with change that ends up being bad.

However: if we leave things the way they are now...........things are just going to get worse, and keep on getting worse.

new topics

top topics

log in